I shall begin by saying that I love OSW for the fact it is usually a place of reasoned discussion where people can maturely discuss the hobby and even disagree in a civilised manner (quite unlike other places on the internet).
Ok, so normally these sorts of threads are DFC's forte, but since yesterday evening I was reading and engaging on a thread on one of the Facebook collector groups regarding paint flaking on one of 'that brands' recent figures.
The responses I got and saw elsewhere on the thread got me thinking about the loyalists (who populate such boards) who are intolerant of negative comments towards their beloved brand and their behaviour toward dissenting opinions.
Are these types of collectors killing the hobby? (in the sense that genuine hobbyists who care about the products are slowly abandoning the hobby, leaving only those that collect either as a status symbol or those who are just brand loyal and don't care about quality).
I must warn you that the Facebook thread really started grinding my gears (hence this post) and I am now in mood for a loooooong post (If you have the patience, grab popcorn/painkillers/cocaine/bleach and enjoy).
From my many interactions with such individuals online (the less such interactions the better but they rear their ugly heads whenever I speak blasphemy against the holy brands) I have noticed patterns, things that they all share. I have kind of built a profile of these sorts of individuals and their strategies and below is a sort of 'inside the mind of' type post.
The religious brand loyalist.
They come in two main forms: status symbol collectors and the religious, the latter of which is becoming more common and most share the same traits: Often abrasive in personality and intolerant of criticism of the 'holy brand' due to emotional attachment to said brand. They are usually of a certain political leaning (which I won't go into here) and usually from wealthier backgrounds.
They project during arguments and make use of multiple logical fallacies in their often repeated posts. Since they are emotionally tied to the brand in the same way that people often emotionally tie themselves to their political leanings, religions or nationalities, any criticism of the product/brand/hobby is seen as an attack on them personally, so they often respond by attacking the messengers of bad news/criticism.
The most recent case study is a dude on the recent 'flaking paint' thread on a Facebook group who didn't take kindly mine and others comments about the quality of the products. Now normally there is another HK guy who pops up to defend said brand regularly (to the point many often say he is employed by the company) but he is not the subject of this post since he actually doesn't argue from emotion being a non religious loyalist, he appears to use his defence lawyer experience to protect the brand more professionally and often makes use of spin and distraction tactics. No, the guy I am looking at today represents the typical religious brand loyalist/protector you will encounter if you are a member of such groups.
I will try to avoid names so I will from now on refer to the case study individual as He Man (Defender of the Brand).
On the thread in question I commented that the flaking issue shown in the accompanying video demonstrated that the metal of the figure doesn't hold paint well (metal by nature doesn't hold paint as well as plastic, so is more prone to scratching and chipping/flaking and of course the weight of the metal itself leads to more stress on the joints resulting in more loose joints) and the fact the newer metal figures have more paint issues than previous ones might be an indication of unsuitable paint or incorrect preparation (e.g. acid baths) of the metal parts prior to painting. Such issues should not happen in high end products.
The thread also included a list of known product issues from said brand that was pretty long (despite being incomplete) as example that the company uses unsuitable materials (likely in cutting corners) on a regular basis despite the high prices being charged.
The defenders came out to state that said brand has the best QC around (arguably true, and I agreed that they do better than most on QC) and that they have a low low defect rate of 5% (who knows where they pulled that number from, one said it without source and the rest kept quoting it repeatedly). I argued that "good QC... doesn't mean the choice of materials is good. If the materials chosen are good for only a couple years or if they are only good for light delicate handling they may still pass QC (based on whatever QC standards the company has) but still not be fit for purpose as high end collectables.". This was not taken well by them of course. (and funnily enough, He Man even responded to someone that defects are even more likely at high price points, because reasons).
He Man commented that the negative comments were mostly coming from non collectors, so I responded by saying that I collect hundreds of 1:6 figures and my collection includes over 40 figures from said brand (just the one product line mentioned, in total I have probably 100 figures by said brand in my collection) so my comments were from someone who is experienced in the hobby. This is where it started getting funny.
In his response, He Man called me an idiot for expecting zero QC issues (I had already conceded that the company has great QC and was discussing choices of fundamental materials or design that result in common problems by the company beyond what normal QC checks would weed out).
I avoided insulting him in return and explained that occasional defects are normal and expected but poor design choices are not and should not be excused. But that is too nuanced for a loyalist, and he immediately returned to the '5% defect rate is amazing' argument and demanded to know of a company that makes better products and cheaper. I happily provided an example (which wasn't convenient for him so it was quickly dropped) and explained that the role of a consumer is to raise concerns over inferior products to keep pressure on companies to raise quality and lower prices, and that not engaging in that role (going so far as to defend the brand) is counter productive and will result in inferior products and high prices.
From that point He Man started typing responses shotgun style, making frequent ad hominem attacks, false equivalencies, straw man arguments (constantly ignoring that I was not saying the basic QC was bad, but the fundamental design choices were, and he of course neglected to respond to my actual points) then after repeating his original argument again proceeded to call me whiney, saying I cry on the internet and should pi** off (and later things like f**k off). Of course I did not sink to such name calling or foul language in my responses.
It continued like this for a while, me naively thinking I could counter his attacks and foul language by pointing out the frequent logical fallacies he was making and then spelling out my argument as clearly as possible, with the help of other product examples and metaphors (such as if high end watches used rubber parts that cracked and disintegrated within months making them cease to function as an example to show the difference between bad QC and bad design) to help explain what I was saying.
The mistake I made was in thinking that He Man simply misunderstood me. It turned out of course that he fully understood me and was simply ignoring my arguments in favour of his insult and fallacy filled strawman argument so that he could appear to have 'won' through posturing, acting like a dominant slapping his lesser opponent (and hilariously he kept saying he was only being logical despite the numerous logical fallacies he continued making, the irony and hypocrisy was mind blowing).
I could see it wasn't going anywhere (and to be frank I have better things to do) so after he flung some more insults I simply stated that I will leave it up to the readers to decide who was correct and who was being illogical.
Now that should have ended it but this morning I saw that the thread had continued (and more loyalists had joined the discussion) and He Man named me personally in another comment responding to someone else and continued insulting my character and calling me a loser, so I responded simply by saying that I had made all my points earlier in the thread and readers can read through those to make up their own minds, then stopped responding to him. Of course, the mind of an emotional loyalist can't rest until they have vanquished the great evil dragon so he continued several more posts stating that I am 'the bane of the hobby' etc.
Brave He Man then proceeded to block another person who disagreed with him (somehow I avoided being blocked so far, probably because I stopped responding to him). This sort of behaviour is another common tactic among loyalists. There was one before (a couple actually) among those who blocked me when I posted criticism of the holy brand who later unblocked me after coming to reason and actually apologised and admitted he was wrong without any prompting from myself which was nice, but most are not so reasonable and remain dogmatic.
While writing this post I decided to do a quick count of He Man's comments about the flaking issue (he had stated that I was on a crusade by commenting constantly, but at last count he had replied the thread posted yesterday 82 times with a further 4 on his own page and who knows how many elsewhere. Like I said, projection.
As I said, I think the abrasive loyalists behave this way because the hobby (or more specifically the brand) has taken on religious levels of emotional attachment for them.
The less emotional loyalists (the sort who aren't attached but to whom the hobby is merely a status symbol) have different tactics: mainly either making excuses for the brand or telling those with complaints that they should leave the hobby if they are not happy, the irony there being that they will themselves often leave expensive hobbies to move on the next big thing because they are merely wearing the hobby as a status symbol.
Now by now you are probably sick of my rant/drama post and in need of some Ibuprofen, but I find this kind of thing interesting and I needed to vent a bit of my frustration from dealing with such individuals. If you made it this far, I assume you think I just should not engage in such disagreements (sure, there are better things to do) but I do think that criticising bad product design is important for consumers to do.
Do you think that the brand loyalists will destroy the hobby over time or do you think they are simply replacing the hobbyists? Is my characterisation of brand loyalists fair or am I in the wrong here?
(If anyone wants to the read the original facebook post I can provide the link or screenshots for your own masochistic entertainment).
Ok, so normally these sorts of threads are DFC's forte, but since yesterday evening I was reading and engaging on a thread on one of the Facebook collector groups regarding paint flaking on one of 'that brands' recent figures.
The responses I got and saw elsewhere on the thread got me thinking about the loyalists (who populate such boards) who are intolerant of negative comments towards their beloved brand and their behaviour toward dissenting opinions.
Are these types of collectors killing the hobby? (in the sense that genuine hobbyists who care about the products are slowly abandoning the hobby, leaving only those that collect either as a status symbol or those who are just brand loyal and don't care about quality).
I must warn you that the Facebook thread really started grinding my gears (hence this post) and I am now in mood for a loooooong post (If you have the patience, grab popcorn/painkillers/cocaine/bleach and enjoy).
From my many interactions with such individuals online (the less such interactions the better but they rear their ugly heads whenever I speak blasphemy against the holy brands) I have noticed patterns, things that they all share. I have kind of built a profile of these sorts of individuals and their strategies and below is a sort of 'inside the mind of' type post.
The religious brand loyalist.
They come in two main forms: status symbol collectors and the religious, the latter of which is becoming more common and most share the same traits: Often abrasive in personality and intolerant of criticism of the 'holy brand' due to emotional attachment to said brand. They are usually of a certain political leaning (which I won't go into here) and usually from wealthier backgrounds.
They project during arguments and make use of multiple logical fallacies in their often repeated posts. Since they are emotionally tied to the brand in the same way that people often emotionally tie themselves to their political leanings, religions or nationalities, any criticism of the product/brand/hobby is seen as an attack on them personally, so they often respond by attacking the messengers of bad news/criticism.
The most recent case study is a dude on the recent 'flaking paint' thread on a Facebook group who didn't take kindly mine and others comments about the quality of the products. Now normally there is another HK guy who pops up to defend said brand regularly (to the point many often say he is employed by the company) but he is not the subject of this post since he actually doesn't argue from emotion being a non religious loyalist, he appears to use his defence lawyer experience to protect the brand more professionally and often makes use of spin and distraction tactics. No, the guy I am looking at today represents the typical religious brand loyalist/protector you will encounter if you are a member of such groups.
I will try to avoid names so I will from now on refer to the case study individual as He Man (Defender of the Brand).
On the thread in question I commented that the flaking issue shown in the accompanying video demonstrated that the metal of the figure doesn't hold paint well (metal by nature doesn't hold paint as well as plastic, so is more prone to scratching and chipping/flaking and of course the weight of the metal itself leads to more stress on the joints resulting in more loose joints) and the fact the newer metal figures have more paint issues than previous ones might be an indication of unsuitable paint or incorrect preparation (e.g. acid baths) of the metal parts prior to painting. Such issues should not happen in high end products.
The thread also included a list of known product issues from said brand that was pretty long (despite being incomplete) as example that the company uses unsuitable materials (likely in cutting corners) on a regular basis despite the high prices being charged.
The defenders came out to state that said brand has the best QC around (arguably true, and I agreed that they do better than most on QC) and that they have a low low defect rate of 5% (who knows where they pulled that number from, one said it without source and the rest kept quoting it repeatedly). I argued that "good QC... doesn't mean the choice of materials is good. If the materials chosen are good for only a couple years or if they are only good for light delicate handling they may still pass QC (based on whatever QC standards the company has) but still not be fit for purpose as high end collectables.". This was not taken well by them of course. (and funnily enough, He Man even responded to someone that defects are even more likely at high price points, because reasons).
He Man commented that the negative comments were mostly coming from non collectors, so I responded by saying that I collect hundreds of 1:6 figures and my collection includes over 40 figures from said brand (just the one product line mentioned, in total I have probably 100 figures by said brand in my collection) so my comments were from someone who is experienced in the hobby. This is where it started getting funny.
In his response, He Man called me an idiot for expecting zero QC issues (I had already conceded that the company has great QC and was discussing choices of fundamental materials or design that result in common problems by the company beyond what normal QC checks would weed out).
I avoided insulting him in return and explained that occasional defects are normal and expected but poor design choices are not and should not be excused. But that is too nuanced for a loyalist, and he immediately returned to the '5% defect rate is amazing' argument and demanded to know of a company that makes better products and cheaper. I happily provided an example (which wasn't convenient for him so it was quickly dropped) and explained that the role of a consumer is to raise concerns over inferior products to keep pressure on companies to raise quality and lower prices, and that not engaging in that role (going so far as to defend the brand) is counter productive and will result in inferior products and high prices.
From that point He Man started typing responses shotgun style, making frequent ad hominem attacks, false equivalencies, straw man arguments (constantly ignoring that I was not saying the basic QC was bad, but the fundamental design choices were, and he of course neglected to respond to my actual points) then after repeating his original argument again proceeded to call me whiney, saying I cry on the internet and should pi** off (and later things like f**k off). Of course I did not sink to such name calling or foul language in my responses.
It continued like this for a while, me naively thinking I could counter his attacks and foul language by pointing out the frequent logical fallacies he was making and then spelling out my argument as clearly as possible, with the help of other product examples and metaphors (such as if high end watches used rubber parts that cracked and disintegrated within months making them cease to function as an example to show the difference between bad QC and bad design) to help explain what I was saying.
The mistake I made was in thinking that He Man simply misunderstood me. It turned out of course that he fully understood me and was simply ignoring my arguments in favour of his insult and fallacy filled strawman argument so that he could appear to have 'won' through posturing, acting like a dominant slapping his lesser opponent (and hilariously he kept saying he was only being logical despite the numerous logical fallacies he continued making, the irony and hypocrisy was mind blowing).
I could see it wasn't going anywhere (and to be frank I have better things to do) so after he flung some more insults I simply stated that I will leave it up to the readers to decide who was correct and who was being illogical.
Now that should have ended it but this morning I saw that the thread had continued (and more loyalists had joined the discussion) and He Man named me personally in another comment responding to someone else and continued insulting my character and calling me a loser, so I responded simply by saying that I had made all my points earlier in the thread and readers can read through those to make up their own minds, then stopped responding to him. Of course, the mind of an emotional loyalist can't rest until they have vanquished the great evil dragon so he continued several more posts stating that I am 'the bane of the hobby' etc.
Brave He Man then proceeded to block another person who disagreed with him (somehow I avoided being blocked so far, probably because I stopped responding to him). This sort of behaviour is another common tactic among loyalists. There was one before (a couple actually) among those who blocked me when I posted criticism of the holy brand who later unblocked me after coming to reason and actually apologised and admitted he was wrong without any prompting from myself which was nice, but most are not so reasonable and remain dogmatic.
While writing this post I decided to do a quick count of He Man's comments about the flaking issue (he had stated that I was on a crusade by commenting constantly, but at last count he had replied the thread posted yesterday 82 times with a further 4 on his own page and who knows how many elsewhere. Like I said, projection.
As I said, I think the abrasive loyalists behave this way because the hobby (or more specifically the brand) has taken on religious levels of emotional attachment for them.
The less emotional loyalists (the sort who aren't attached but to whom the hobby is merely a status symbol) have different tactics: mainly either making excuses for the brand or telling those with complaints that they should leave the hobby if they are not happy, the irony there being that they will themselves often leave expensive hobbies to move on the next big thing because they are merely wearing the hobby as a status symbol.
Now by now you are probably sick of my rant/drama post and in need of some Ibuprofen, but I find this kind of thing interesting and I needed to vent a bit of my frustration from dealing with such individuals. If you made it this far, I assume you think I just should not engage in such disagreements (sure, there are better things to do) but I do think that criticising bad product design is important for consumers to do.
Do you think that the brand loyalists will destroy the hobby over time or do you think they are simply replacing the hobbyists? Is my characterisation of brand loyalists fair or am I in the wrong here?
(If anyone wants to the read the original facebook post I can provide the link or screenshots for your own masochistic entertainment).
