| Derek H | 23 Dec 2010 12:51 p.m. PST |
The easy way of keeping up to date with discussions that continue after they've dropped off the front page is to visit individual discussion boards where topics rise to the top of the page every time someone adds a post. This is easy to do for a couple of boards but becomes a right royal pain if the subject you're interested in spread across several boards. You can use searches to keep track of topics you're particularly interested in, but looking at individual boards is the easy way to find out what other people are interested in. |
| vojvoda | 23 Dec 2010 1:01 p.m. PST |
picture Post a comment, add to the discussion, contribute to the tread and do a search on yourself! Make a folder and book mark it. Delete when done. Do a google search with TMP in the title and the subject. Now to take your logic to task why not have one board then all posting would be there and think how hard it would be to follow a thread there? Can't have it both ways. Too easy. VR
James Mattes |
| MajorB | 23 Dec 2010 1:07 p.m. PST |
Now to take your logic to task why not have one board then all posting would be there and think how hard it would be to follow a thread there? Actually that would be quite easy. That's how it worked on the previous forum I was on. Particularly if the active threads ripple to the top of the list (as they do on the individual boards). |
| vojvoda | 23 Dec 2010 1:12 p.m. PST |
So according to your logic if I am following a thread on Napoleonic Naval actions and there is one board I would have to wade through all the chaff there to find it? One board is fine with limited posting there are way too many threads and too much chaff on some to be sure. VR
James Mattes |
| Derek H | 23 Dec 2010 1:13 p.m. PST |
Post a comment, add to the discussion, contribute to the tread and do a search on yourself! The thread will move down the search result pages as I comment on newer threads. Searches are sorted by date of original posting, not date of most recent posting. Make a folder and book mark it. Delete when done. Doesn't help me keep track of what other people are discussing. Do a google search with TMP in the title and the subject. I'd have to be very interested indeed in something to remember to do that. Now to take your logic to task why not have one board then all posting would be there and think how hard it would be to follow a thread there? Straw Man. Two or three boards (max) per period would work just fine. Interestingly all your techniques for following things would work just as well if TMP had but a single board. |
| Derek H | 23 Dec 2010 1:17 p.m. PST |
One board is fine with limited posting there are way too many threads and too much chaff on some to be be sure. But too many boards are just as bad. It's a question of balance. At the moment TMP has got far too many boards and is moving even further in that direction. |
| Derek H | 23 Dec 2010 1:27 p.m. PST |
All this talk of reducing the number of boards has reminded me to do some housekeeping on the club discussion forum. Five dead boards and I'm feeling good! |
aecurtis  | 23 Dec 2010 1:33 p.m. PST |
"Now to take your logic to task why not have one board then all posting would be there and think how hard it would be to follow a thread there?" Bookmarking threads of interest would be an equally effective technique, if TMP were set up that way. Allen |
| vojvoda | 23 Dec 2010 1:52 p.m. PST |
Hey I agree it is a question of ballance. One board was created FoW and some got thier panties in a bunch and it was Jody bar the door on spam-o-graming TMP Talk by a few. Now we have this: YouTube link Board proliferation would not be an issue if Kim-Jong-OFM and posse would have just let it go. Now Thezs ask for it and theze gets it. VR
James Mattes |
| Derek H | 23 Dec 2010 2:08 p.m. PST |
If TMP is going to have rules specific boards then it's only fair that there should be boards for all rules that meet the objective criteria that were set for FoW. All or none. Why should FoW or FoG be given preferential treatment. Preferential treatment that actually makes things worse for everybody. I think most of the people voting for more boards actually want fewer boards. The system is broken, there are too many boards. There were too many boards before the FoW board arrived on the scene despite the TMP membership's overwhelming opposition. It seems that the only way to make Bill realise all this is to vote for more boards. |
| vojvoda | 23 Dec 2010 2:28 p.m. PST |
They are not given preferential treatment! Do you think someone slipped Bill a fiver at the back door? Please. Someone asked for a poll and got it (I was I think the one for Flames of War) if nobody had asked we would not have had a poll. How long did those who cried for no new board hold the rest hostage with a moratorium on eh? Was that fair? I guess if it is on your side of the fence it is fair right?
VR
James Mattes |
| MajorB | 23 Dec 2010 3:04 p.m. PST |
They are not given preferential treatment! Having a board of its own on the well respected and erudite nay even famous TMP is not preferential treatment? Do you think someone slipped Bill a fiver at the back door? If they didn't then Bill is missing a trick or two. Or is he suddenly willing to give away free advertising? Those of you who pay for advertising here should take note … vojvoda, my friend, have you not noticed that you seem to be in a very small minority of the opinions expressed ion this subject in the last few days? |
| vojvoda | 23 Dec 2010 4:11 p.m. PST |
Not by the PMs and Email I have gotten. And there are what five six who want to keep this brew-ha-ha going?
VR
James Mattes |
| ming31 | 23 Dec 2010 4:27 p.m. PST |
Fewer boards are better boards |
| Goldwyrm | 23 Dec 2010 4:45 p.m. PST |
And there are what five six Perhaps a poll to see what the majority of folks think about adding a new board….then those half dozen people could be shown they're in the minority… Like in these examples: TMP link TMP link TMP link TMP link TMP link
I didn't realize we had that many multiple accounts. LOL
|
| Derek H | 23 Dec 2010 4:53 p.m. PST |
Margard wrote:
Having a board of its own on the well respected and erudite nay even famous TMP is not preferential treatment? Obviously not. Especially if it's implemented after a democratic vote of 45 for and 215 against. |
| Paul Hurst | 23 Dec 2010 4:57 p.m. PST |
|
| MajorB | 24 Dec 2010 3:28 a.m. PST |
I hadn't realised that those two polls regarding merging boards had been totally ignored – in spite of overwhelming majorities in favour. |
| kevanG | 24 Dec 2010 7:52 a.m. PST |
Tmp polls……3% can have a veto, and 97% isnt a big enough majority and 20 can be a viable number of support. give em what they want I say unless I veto it. Sometimes merging isnt a good idea and sometimes new boards are pointless. The number of boards should be based on the traffic on the periods. |
