"A Possible Solution to the TMP Napoleonic Problem" Topic

Call the new Board the Napoleonic Mud Wrestling Board, and I am with you.

Works for me. How do we get the required 30 voters?

Bill???

I hope daves post earlier was meant to be ironic…..Something tells me in the back of my mind it wasn't…..

I think that the obvious solution is to lock the accounts of a couple of people (you know who you are) since they can't seem to control themselves and be respectful of other people here on TMP.

If it's just a few people, the answer is simpler.

1.) Identify people you have a problem with.
2.) Stifle them.
3.) Done!

1809 is not a popular campaign played out by gamers with rules, which approximate to what happened by accident. If you wish to stay in the land of Quarrie, fine.

Come now Dave! The recent 'Thunder along the Danube' trilogy by Jack Gill gives plenty of scenario detail for wargamers at whatever scale they play, probably even for skirmish games.

As far as artillery bounces go, recent rules have taken this into account. 'Lasalle', for example, has a specific rule covering this, whilst 'Black Powder', a much more generic ruleset which is not intended to operate at that specific level, has quite drastically reduced the effectiveness of artillery at long range to 'harassing'.

For me, and I expect most wargamers, your esoteric academic debates, whilst of interest as background music, do not inform our day to day wargaming activities. Your Ospreys, on the other hand, are always welcomed and probably provide as much detail as we need…I'm certainly looking forward to your next one.

You're probably the kind of person that serves red wine with fish too, aren't you?

Which is how James Bond exposed Red Grant as a SMERSH Agent in 'From Russia with Love' – could a lack of knowledge on Bricoles and their uses also be used to expose enemies of truth, democracy, and Sean Connery?

With a strong tasting fish like shark or marlin, why not? For that matter, if I cook Robert May's Salmon in red wine, I won't be serving it with a white. Wine pairing ought to be about what complements the food, not silly rules of thumb like 'no red with fish.'

I'm not sure Connery knows what a bricole is either…

It occurs to me to wonder how many people on TMP have ever had to use a bricole.
I have.
Weaselhoffen.

Bricoles make excellent defensive weapons. That leather strap isn't just for naughty time, you know.

Weaselhoffen, I have used a carry harness about five times in exercises, but put it on only once for an occasion where I thought I was going to have to use it in earnest. Fortunately for the patient, an ambulance was able to meet us at the pad so he got to the hospital a hell of a lot quicker.

I always associated the term with Italian cooking link and had no idea that a bricole was a harness for pulling guns (or carrying stretchers) until about four years ago.

I have trundled a 2" Krupp mountain gun around with three other guys using one. On a downslope, even the small gun threatened to drag you like parachute on a windy day.
Weaselhoffen.

Dave Hollins and Kevin Kiley both contribute helpful information on this forum (when they're not arguing with each other). However a couple of their acolytes leave a lot to be desired when it comes to joined-up thinking and are chiefly responsible for the juvenile name-calling that most of us find irritating. I agree with Der Alte Fritz's suggestion that these people have their accounts locked. An offence of "witless repetition" would certainly cover the main culprit. Meanwhile, the rest of us can all manage to avoid The Bricole War threads in which Dave and Kevin go head to head or at least let them get on with it without commenting.

Locking accounts, special boards, dawghousing people… All of these proposals smell to censorship. A polite discussion can be desirable, but should not be enforced.

average joe wrote:

In the end, this is about toy soldiers painted pretty colors and lined up on a table for an afternoon's fun.

Yep. I like mine to be as pretty as is plausible.

hollin's earlier post just goes to show how out of touch he really is with modern wargaming and wargamer cognitive intelligence to discern what is probably historically correct and what is not. For example, my favourite period is 1809, I think it is the point of balance between the French and Austrian armies where either side could have won that campaign if re-fought. hollins does not give wargamers enough credit that we know more than he thinks we do.

Also, as for Quarrie, as much as hollins seems to think most (if not all wargamers) are stuck in the period of 1975-1985 and adhere to Quarrie's philosophy of the period, I will be the first to tell dear mr hollins most of us are way past the Quarrie period. hollins seems to not understand that it was Quarrie for many gamers who enabled us to begin wargaming and gain an understanding of the period, his rules are where many of us first sunk our teeth into the period. However, what hollins seems to misunderstand is that most of us have since moved on and grown with our own enlightenment that goes far beyond what Quarie first offered us.

Also, hollins talks about nuclear artillery alot and disrespects many gamers by insisting that we fire artillery as it the shells and balls were guided missiles. So here I go again to inform him that most of us have also moved ahead of that misconception, I know I have.

To me it appears hollins just wants a place to be heard and vomit his disdain for anyone who does not agree with him and shows it through his arrogance and belittling behaviour including disrespect for fellow human beings capable of self-thought and mental capacity. hollins seems to feel we are all a danger to ourselves if we do not see the light according to his perspective.

Well I for one am sick and tired of his same old tired excuse to bag everyone else by blindly assuring himself that none of us are capable of seeing and knowing the truth for ourselves that he must be our guiding light like some deity sent to save us!!! get over yourself hollins.

I know posters here tihink when I post, "oh no, here we go again" but if hollins stopped his insulting arrogant behaviour I would not need to stand up against him. That's all it would take for me to shut up and get back to discussing the period and learning something.

I've got to say that I find it odd that these historians have chosen a miniatures gaming site to carry on their feud, instead of some specific website for Napoleonic history discussion, but there we are.

Is it that odd ? You can judge a guy by the friends he keeps, maybe these guys are just more "wargamer" than "proper historian". Otherwise, as you suggest, they'd go manno-on-manno with the proper historians rather than trying to impress the "dimwit wargamers".

Oh – and I like Bruce Quarrie's stuff. Not everything, and I don't play his rules exclusively, but all his books (even the ones about tanks !) are good hobby wargaming reads.

Quarrie makes the point in the the intro to NCIM that it was the point of that book to rehash what was already out there. Pre-internet, that kind of book was where you got your info from if you didn't have the time, funds or access to get hold of dozens of books.

In the 1977 edition, he observes that describing certain armies was hard because there was no good book about the Austrian, Prussian, or Scandinavian armies, and very little available in English about Austrian and Russian commanders. The 1992 edition repeats the same point. 15 years on little had changed.

It's a bit unfair IMHO to single out a book that originated nearly 40 years ago as an example of inaccurate history. Quarrie said little that was controversial, given what was known at the time.

He does also explicitly say that if your own research contradicts his you should feel free to chuck out his assumptions and replace them with your own. The whole tone of the books really is "This is what appears to be the case, but if you know better feel free". In the Arab-Israeli book he appeals to readers to provide any information they can because there is so little out there on contemporary vehicles…and laments that wargamers in 30 years' time (i.e. about now) will have it all a lot easier. If only he knew.

I still use the mechanisms in the Quarrie rules, though I have changed much else. I wonder what currently accepted bit of uncontroversial wisdom we will be shaking our heads over in 2050?

Is it that odd ? You can judge a guy by the friends he keeps, maybe these guys are just more "wargamer" than "proper historian". Otherwise, as you suggest, they'd go manno-on-manno with the proper historians rather than trying to impress the "dimwit wargamers".

Hollins and Kiley are not wargamers. Which goes some way to putting their somewhat eccentric views about our hobby into context.

Whether or not they are 'proper historians' is another matter…

I agree whole heartedly with woundedknee.

Like a fair few others, I've had to read and suffer all the endless forum wrecking sniping between Mr Hollins and Mr Kiley – not just here on TMP, but going back across several other forums over the years. I don't take sides – they are both equally at fault in my opinion, but I have no particular axe to grind with either of them as individuals. I value their opinions and their knowledge and draw my own conclusions – and when the usual nonsense starts it's easy to simple ignore their posts… at least when it's just them.

For me the greater problem now seems to be their various factional ‘supporters' (wanted or unwanted) who endlessly rise to the bait and stoke the fires – some to a level of obsession threatening to be far greater than anything attained by either Kiley or Hollins.

Please, I beg you, and I suspect I speak for many others when I say this – "Give it a rest". Most of us are bored to death reading this stuff, and most of us couldn't care less whether it's Hollins or Kiley who merits the title ‘Spawn of Satan'. I realise some of their more besotted acolytes will be shocked at my heresy but this is, at the end of the day, just some petty pathetic feud that some of you seem to think is the Napoleonic scholarship crime of the century.

It isn't. Get over it. Move on. Find something more interesting and important to post about. And if you really can't bring your self to read Hollins or Kiley's posts – the stifle button is there for a reason.

I've not yet stifled anyone on this forum – and I'm certainly not going to stifle either Hollins or Kiley, because at least Dave and Kevin have something interesting to say from time to time. But I am seriously considering snuffing out a few of their ‘supporters'.

Is it that odd ? You can judge a guy by the friends he keeps, maybe these guys are just more "wargamer" than "proper historian". Otherwise, as you suggest, they'd go manno-on-manno with the proper historians rather than trying to impress the "dimwit wargamers".

Hollins and Kiley are not wargamers. Which goes some way to putting their somewhat eccentric views about our hobby into context.

Whether or not they are 'proper historians' is another matter…

Ah, you mean they are wargamer wannabees….that's either sad or flattering….I'll have to think about that one…

Okay, fair point. probably I should have made it more obvious that there is a large group of neutrals who just love the period, but I still think the "Napoleon Problem" is the main reason there is so much unpleasantness.

No. Napoleon is not the reason for the unpleasantness.

The Napoleonics Boards have become the personal playground of a number of people who delight in/can't help antagonising each other. It's about the personalities of a relatively small number of individuals, and not the period. They've become a sort of wargamer's equivalent of "Jersey Shore" or "Jerry Springer" – the sort of thing you watch for five or ten minutes before changing the channel.

Can it be fixed? Sure. Does it require "special treatment" in terms of locking accounts, bannings, new boards or what have you? Not at all. The individuals in question merely need to get a hold of themselves, pause and reflect on the image they're presenting to the rest of the wargaming community. Why? Because these people seem to want to be taken seriously by the rest of us, and have their knowledge or research or whatever their thing is respected.

My advice to those people is to start acting in a manner that is likely to earn that respect. Nothing anybody else here says or does – and that includes The Editor – will make the slightest bit of difference to them unless they institute the change themselves. I honestly couldn't say whether or not they want to change. My gut says that they don't, but I could be wrong.

Speaking directly now to the "protagonists and associated hangers-on" (and I'll include the OP in this as – by his own admission – he's part of the problem), if what you're really here for is a bunfight with your "enemies", that's actually fair enough. Have at it, by all means. Forum evidence over the past 12 months seems indicate that you collectively have considerably more interest in that sort of thing as opposed to discussing history or how to represent it on a wargames table.

A shouting match isn't "a debate". Banging on about personal attacks isn't "discussion". Shouting somebody else down isn't just "giving your opinion". Bringing your own agendas with other posters into threads started by a third party who's only asked for a few book recommendations isn't "talking about history and how to game it". Taking a side in a long-running personality clash between two authors and dividing yourself into "camps" or "teams" or whatever schoolyard terminology you're using this week does nothing more than turn these boards into something to be laughed at by passers-by.

As with everything in life, it is your effort and actions which will get you whatever it is that you want. Clearly, the TMP Napoleonics boards are exactly as you would like them to be, because God knows you've spent plenty of time and energy working to get them that way. If you're suddenly deciding that you're not all that happy with their current state, then

(1) Take a good, hard look at how you interact with others here.

(2) Determine whether that's really acceptable behavior, and whether you think it actually fosters debate, discussion, the exchange of ideas and adds to the collective knowledge of the users of the forum.

(3) See whether you need to make some changes in respect of (1) and (2).

Bleating about the state of the place after you've worked quite hard to get it to a point where you need to moan about it? Man up, take a bit of responsibility for your actions, and work to undo the damage you've done.

Or don't.

Your call.

I just removed this from the 'other thread', as I hadn't realized this thread was associated, and probably a better place to post………

My suggestion, and forgive me if it has already been recommended, but……..

This may be because I watched 'The Duelilsts' last night, but I think that rather than a duel with pistol or sword, and in the spirit of our hobby, honor should be settled on the wargames table.

Dave Hollins, gets to use an Austrian army and Kevin Kiley a French army – both of equal points, or composition and strength, using a ruleset and terrain agreed to by their seconds. Best of three – the loser being obliged never to comment on this forum or Amazon.com about the others work or ideas again.

Just a suggestion

npm

"Dave Hollins, gets to use an Austrian army and Kevin Kiley a French army – both of equal points, or composition and strength, using a ruleset and terrain agreed to by their seconds."

That would require them to become wargamers. A non-starter.

Very well said, Mericanach. Hear, hear!

That would require them to become wargamers. A non-starter.

I always thought Kevin Kiley was a gamer [I'm certain he was in one of my games back in 2002], but if both he and Dave Hollins aren't, at least that means neither has an advantage…….

npm

Neither are gamers.

Perhaps a better idea is to ask them each to design a game. Let the marketplace decide!

Nuke them from orbit…Only way to be sure!!

;)

Have aggressive arguing a DH offense. If a number of readers flag participants for aggressive arguing they get DH'd for a certain amount of time, maybe a month. Their behavior is not going to change until consequences are attached to it. Is this censorship? You bet it is. It is not a censorship of ideas but a censorship of behavior.

One must define aggressive arguing in such a way as to not to cut off extended discussions.

Their behavior is not going to change until consequences are attached to it. Is this censorship? You bet it is. It is not a censorship of ideas but a censorship of behavior.

All of the rules governing just what you propose already exist. TMP has rules governing "bad behavior" – they're simply not enforced these days. In fairness, the recent carry-on here in the various Napoleonics boards is not unique in this regard, but it is a rather prominent example.

Blaming the central character in the Napoleonic period for being so divisive that 200 years later he provokes people into bitter, lengthy and personal slagging matches is a first cousin to "the devil made me do it defense". And it's just as pathetic. Running to Bill at this stage when every other thread on the Napoleonic period quickly turns to in short order with a "Daddy fix it" plea for a new place to play, special rules and so forth is pointless. The OP's request for (yet another) segregation is nothing more than an admission that the "players" here cannot – or will not – behave themselves. No more, no less.

This is about the personal responsibility of these individuals. This is about those most involved taking a step back, having a good look at themselves and figuring out whether they're here to actually have discussions and exchange ideas, or just to shout and roar at "the other side". If they were here for discussions, well, it seems to me that there ought to be lots of discussion, don't you think? There isn't, though.

However, there is plenty of aggressive roaring and bawling. Pages and pages of it. Thousands of posts.

Res ipsa loquitar, as the man said. That's what they come here for. Has to be, because self-proclaimed intelligent, scholarly types would be having discussions and exchanging ideas, and not commencing some form of jihad on every other thread. If they really wanted to "discuss" things, that's what they'd be doing, and not this.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. The only people who can sort this out are the protagonists and the various hangers-on. You know who you are, you know what needs to be done. Do it, or don't. It's down to you.

Rem acu tetigisti, Pat.

If Dear Editor really wanted to "fix" this behavior, he could, and using the methods mentioned above.

My guess is that he LIKES it, and thinks it increases readership.

After all, EVERYBODY claims that they hate Jerry Springer or Jersey Shore, yet they do not lack for ad revenue. Assuming that the owners of the TV stations are not out to lose money, they must assume that there's a profit to be made.
Not that there's anything wrong with profit.

It's not changing anyone's beliefs, although they do have their accolytes, much like Scutt Farcus has toadies like Grover Dill.

For everyone who lifts the hem of their robe lest he be polluted by touching the Hollins/Kiley Mud Wrestling Match, how many of us tune to see what the little rascals are up to now?
I know I do, but I am too smart to wager on the outcome.
For the life of me, I cannot remember who has what position on which artillery, or who thinks Austria really won all the battles. It's like trying to keep track of which WWE diva ia a heel and which is a face. Too much trouble. I would rather watch the ruckus.

If Dear Editor really wanted to "fix" this behavior, he could, and using the methods mentioned above.

My guess is that he LIKES it, and thinks it increases readership.

That. Never mind the quality, count the page hits.

Bleating about the state of the place after you've worked quite hard to get it to a point where you need to moan about it? Man up, take a bit of responsibility for your actions, and work to undo the damage you've done.

Sadly that was what I was trying to do. Did you not recognise it as such?

It's not changing anyone's beliefs, although they do have their accolytes, much like Scutt Farcus has toadies like Grover Dill.

Just so you know, I rather resent the term 'toadie'.

For everyone who lifts the hem of their robe lest he be polluted by touching the Hollins/Kiley Mud Wrestling Match, how many of us tune to see what the little rascals are up to now?

More truth in this bit than many will want to admit, though. Other than already having a personal dislke for Dave Hollins, this is how I originally got drawn into this. I have at least attempted a spot of mea culpa by starting this thread although being as close to another 20 people have stifled me since it would appear I've not done much of a job.

Sadly that was what I was trying to do. Did you not recognise it as such?

No, Old Bear, your proposal isn't even in the same universe as taking responsibility and working to change things around here.

Reading your proposal, what you're looking for is a free-fire zone within which to continue whatever it is you and the rest of them come here to do. A bit like a bunch of junkies going to the local police station and saying that they'll quit shooting up on the street and dropping their needles everywhere and confine themselves solely to that house over there where nobody can see them. With a sort of tacit understanding from the local cops that they'll be allowed to continue to juice up, and not get arrested.

There's nothing in your proposal about stopping the bad behavior. Your proposal isn't eradication – it's just containment.

You guys are hooked on each other, same as any meth head or smack lover. You're just looking for an excuse and a location to continue to feed your habit without sanction, not to get clean.

There are actually three types of people here

1) the self-proclaimed experts, who believe it's their way or the highway
2) the enablers, the sycophantic hangers on of 1)
3) the funny s, these are the types who used to go to Bedlam to poke the loonies with a stick. Since Bedlam closed and the internet opened, they have a new outlet. They tend not to take themselves or The Period (cue ponderous music) too seriously. This drives types 1) and 2) up the wall.

They're all part of the same problem, but they're also coming from different directions.

I'm a 3). I'll also stand up and say that if I want 'serious history', an internet forum is not my first – or even second, choice . Very little of what goes on here is 'serious history' anyway, it's merely tedious minutiae that only middle-aged, middle-class men of a certain bent find fascinating.

Personally, I have better things to do with my time than care if it was Gribeauval or Lichtenstein who built a better mousetrap.

Just so you know, I rather resent the term 'toadie'.

Let me give you a clue here. I have no idea who you are, and I do not recognize your name in connection with … anything beyond this thread.
I THOUGHT you were one of those who wish to bemoan the general state of affairs that TMP falls into when the Mud Wrestlers take their act to the main ring.
You're an acolyte? I never knew!

"Toadie" is a reference to the American movie, "A Christmas Story".
I am not going to make a spinelessly lame apology along the lines of "If I have offended anyone, to them I apologize". I USUALLY choose my words carefully, and am perfectly content to stick with "toadie".

geez, how much drama can you guys put up here?

Lets face it, most of you enjoy the drama and get off on it. If there was no argument you would not be here probably. Everyone who posts here wants to make some dramatic, important sophisticated post that in some way enlightens the rest of us and heightens their own self-importance at the same time (I am doing it right now). And if we did not feel strongly in our own self-importance most of us would not be here.

It's all about ego and the perceived right to express ourselves regarding our knowledge of the period. Problem is, that this means that we step on the toes of others along the way, sometimes deliberately. It has nothing to do with insanity (as some suggest) and all to do about emotions and pride.

There is a concept called: "Emotional Intelligence" in psychology fields and social sciences (look it up in google scholar). This is a set of 5 traits that we all have that define our personalities and how we interact with people. One dimension in this is about self-awareness, a trait where you consciously acknowledge your actions and how they affect others. But first you have to self-analyse to understand this. Once you become conscious of how your own actions come across to the receiver(s) of your actions, stance, point of view etc then you can better cope and deal with who you are, or at least be aware of what you do and how it affects others.

I will be the first to put my hand up and admit my actions frustrate and incense others to react. The more direct and focused on making a point in one direction the more focused and aligned I am going to align others in one or more directions. When you do this you are going to get those who are diametrically apposed to your views to become vocal against you, especially if they have underdeveloped emotional intelligences.

That is what is going on here and it is especially heightened because you cannot discern tone on the Internet as well. People are going to get incensed and fight against those they who hold views they are opposed to or do not agree with at least. If you are constantly protesting or arguing a point time and time again then it is not due to insanity but because you feel you are not getting your point across so you will step up the argument to do so.

If all of us sat in a room together and the doors were locked and we were told to fix the problems it would end after a few days where at least we would get to know each other and be in a better position to at least understand opposing points of view. This cannot be done on the Internet. I would venture to say that we would all emerge with a totally different view of each other that you cannot pick up in an impersonal Internet chat forum.

Judging people by what they post does nothing to understand the person, you end up with a totally misunderstood perception of someone that would not become apparent until you met them in the flesh.

Lets face it, most of you enjoy the drama and get off on it. If there was no argument you would not be here probably.

Google "collective narcissim" and revert to us. See if any boxes get checked.

It's all about ego

Yep. It certainly is. You nailed that one right there.

There's not one post on this thread I haven't heard before.

It's time our protagonists took action!
C'mon fellas, give some lawyer all your money, sell your house at bargain basement rates & decide on who has custody of the children.

Still, I don't get it. How can anybody be upset because a small group of persons find funny to engage in a shouting match?

Well we can always bring back that guy who loves Empire.

That is fully capable of putting loads of individuals into the Dawghouse.

There's nothing in your proposal about stopping the bad behavior. Your proposal isn't eradication – it's just containment.

That's because you can't stop it. Unless you plan on banning everybody involved. is that where you want to go. I was suggesting a controlled rea where you knew what you were likely nto get. The lack of oxygen might even naturally kill it, as far as TMP goes in any case.

As for taking resonsibility, well as a "sycophanitic hanger-on cum toadie" I'm just a really small cog in a bigger wheel. My responsibility level is relatively minor.

Let me give you a clue here. I have no idea who you are, and I do not recognize your name in connection with … anything beyond this thread.

Unlike some people I don't actively seek celebrity, John.

"Toadie" is a reference to the American movie, "A Christmas Story".
I am not going to make a spinelessly lame apology along the lines of "If I have offended anyone, to them I apologize". I USUALLY choose my words carefully, and am perfectly content to stick with "toadie".

I don't want an apology. I simply told you I don't like it. 'Toadie' in the UK may, it seems, be less flattering than it is in the States. The spelling is sometimes slightly different but the meaning is a sycophant. Nobody here fits that description because there is nothing to be gained by sycophancy here. It would be a pointless act.

A 'real man' defends his turf, whatever the price. One who is committed to the truth, defends the principle, no matter what scorn and derision they are subject to.

I suggest that the protagonists and their respective entourages attempt to settle this in the appropriate fashion…. wrestling naked in a wading pool full of warm gelatine. They've already done so in a metaphorical sense, it's high time they did it for real.

;-)

Then we can take bets and post the video on Youtube. A postive result for all and possibly a nice little earner to boot.

A toady is a servile, fawning, obsequious flatterer.
The American word toadie, according to the online Urban Dictionary means "a side kick, a tag-a-long, one who is sent to do the dirty work". There seems to be a qualitative difference between the meanings of the two words and A Christmas Story sounds like a film (sorry, movie) well worth missing.
Now back to the main feature…

They built the Imperial War Museum on the site of the original Bedlam.

Always thought that hightly appropriate.

Now some killjoy will tell me this is an urban myth (even though it is spread by the IWM in their own publicity).

Just to clarify

Toadie = arse licker

Wow, that didn't get bleeped out.

Yet.

problem? what problem. I wish there was a solution.Everyone has been very helpful, sometimes the head banging is annoying, sometimes amusing