"Removal of posts in Flames of War board" Topic

OK, so my Tiger I post was removed twice within an hour, without any explanation, any PM or response to my critique and questions in post nr2.

I don't even know if it is the Editor, or some overzealous moderator with too much time sniping random posts in this thread. Whoever is doing this, please STOP!

What is the point of having a crosspost option, and what exactly are the criteria for a "legal" Flames of War board post?

I ask because:

1) Posts are removed at random. Content of the same kind is treated differently without logical explanation.

2) After having added a crosspost to "WW2 Land" gallery which I could not care less about when it comes to me posting 15mm stuff clearly and mainly meant to be used for FoW post still have their FoW board tag removed. I only added the WW2 land gallery to appease the Editor and the weird (and irrational) judgment of what is allowed and in which subforum.

3) Is there a forum rule that prohibits a subject to be cross posted? And if so, why can I post stuff in Victorian SF and crosspost to Pulp Gaming and Horror without any repercussion similar to what is going on in this part of TMP.

4) Is the Flames of War board meant to be a Battlefront 2.0 forum where only BF products are allowed?

5) How about at least informing the user over PM why the thread was removed / write in the remaining thread why the crosspost was removed. The complete lack of communication gives an arrogant vibe that I can assure annoys the targeted TMP user.

In what way is that Tiger "clearly and mainly meant to be used for FoW" compared to say these Shermans (which aren't).

What is the point of having a crosspost option, and what exactly are the criteria for a "legal" Flames of War board post?

That it's got something specific to do with Flames of War? That it isn't a more general posting relevant to people using other rules?

I don't get it either. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for what is happening.

I definitely don't go perusing the various WWII specific lists for things that are FOW related or 15mm miniatures related. I would go there if I had something specific about something that actually occurred during WWII…

It would be nice to know the thought process in place here.

TMP is becoming less useful than it has been in the past…

Some territory seems easier to defend than other territory

Could just be another bug.

Posts that are just pictures of toys, however pretty, go in the Gallery boards. Only. Pictures are not rules set specific (on the whole). You can tell the editor changed it as it says on the left. Cross posting is to be kept to a minimum (admitedly, the more boards there are, the harder that gets…).

Just print the statline of whatever youre posting in the thread too. That way it can stay here.

Well the FoW board is filled with threads that have very little to do with the actual set of rules itself if you want to apply your reasoning.

People asking for spare parts, discussion on units not properly represented by any manufacturer, reviews of miniatures not made specifically for Flames of War (and For Flames of War by BF but without the required connection to the rules), terrain threads etc.

If everything was to be removed, this board would shrink down to 20% of its current size. One has to make the assumption, that stuff posted here – or cross posted to this board – have some sort of relevance to the FoW community as a whole.

I will never spontaneously dig around in WW2 Air board just to see a picture of a Stuka painted up by a member using it for FoW and meant to show other FoW players that particular model so that they become aware of its existence, the existence of manufacturers other than Battlefront or to start a discussion about comparisons between ranges of miniatures members want to use for FoW.

I will keep posting my FoW intended 15mm WW2 models over at the WWPD forum from now on. If the same things start to happen on the other boards I may well stop posting on TMP completely.

This is precisely why ruleset-specific boards are a bad idea.

Posts that are just pictures of toys, however pretty, go in the Gallery boards.

Correct. Your topic had no Flames of War content.

How about at least informing the user over PM why the thread was removed / write in the remaining thread why the crosspost was removed. The complete lack of communication gives an arrogant vibe that I can assure annoys the targeted TMP user.

Strange, I thought the "arrogant vibe" was from the person who re-posted the topic which had just been removed, rather than contact The Editor about his question…

@ The Editor
Reposted with a new topic title and additional information in the first post to make it more clear it was FoW related – still removed.

That still doesn't explain why that post was removed when my other similar posts remain. No answers have been given to any points raised above in my first posts either. Not trying to be difficult on purpose – and I'm not alone seriously wondering what's going on here.

Give the remaining FoW board users a rundown of rules to avoid stuff like this from happening in the future.

Edit: happy removing

TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

Took me perhaps 30 seconds to compile this list of topics in this board, currently on the first page.
Both my own, and by others, all valuable in one way or the other to Flames of War gamers BUT which don't have anything specific to do with FoW according to the very tiny amount of information describing what constitutes a legal FoW board post. If the posters thought the threads contained valuable information to other parts of the forum they crossposted.

The rule is:

Unless your post is 100% relevant to FOW showing only BF products, you should post elsewhere. 15mm is too generic a topic for the FOW (TM) board, since it can be misused to perpetuate the products of FOW's competitors like PSC and FIB.

So, unless you're solely discussing FOW and BF products and NOTHING else, you probably should post elsewhere.

So, unless you're solely discussing FOW and BF products and NOTHING else, you probably should post elsewhere.

Like maybe other web site forums? That's the sense I'm getting.

It's not toys out pram time is it?

VonBurge:

Like maybe other website forums? That's the sense I'm getting.

Or maybe one of the 'more suitable' boards like 'WWII Discussion' or 'WWII Model Review' that's not specific to the FoW and Battlefront registered trademarks. And I guess if you don't like being told where you cannot post, you can go outside of TMP or dump FoW altogether in protest.

Hey, I'm just sayin'. I don't play FoW. It's not even my scale.

This seems complete madness. BF is a producer of nice models, Flames of War is a ruleset. I can play FoW with entirely Peter Pig figures and tanks and should be able to discuss those here!!
I should be able to use BF figures for other rulesets and discuss those models on the other topics.
This, surely, is a rules pecific list???
Roy

If you want to discuss 15mm models for use in WWII games, then go to the appropriate board – WWII Models Review.

If you want to discuss anything that's specific to Flames of War, then do it here.

Simples!

Discussing identical models in different places because they're going to be used to play different rules, which is what you're proposing, would not be even slightly sensible.

If you really feel you need to lock yourself up in an FoW ghetto there's a fair few of them of them elsewhere on the Interwebs.

I can play FoW with entirely Peter Pig figures and tanks and should be able to discuss those here!!!

Only if the discussion is limited to FoW and makes no reference whatsoever to Peter Pig products. Any comment or review of non-Battlefront products are strictly prohibited, especially if they're cast in a favorable light. This is understandable, as FoW/BF wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing people to suggest or encourage others to patronize the products of its competitors, even if they are superior to its own.

That's really kinda funny, 28mm WW2Fanatik, considering that BF explicitly allows other manufacturers miniatures to be used at BF-sponsored national tournaments.

Well, except the painting-only competitions. But for all the gaming you want to do, BF gave explicit permission to use any manufacturer's products in any tournament they sponsor.

Lion in the Stars is 100% correct.
Battlefront is much more enlightened in this regard than another Giant Wombat in The Hobby™ I could mention.

They do get a tad cranky on their own site about discussing "other" manufacturers, but who can blame them?

This is rather amusing – the purists are getting more uptight about the FoW/BF "purity" of this sub-forum (which is on a *non* BF-run forum) than BF are on their own!

Agreed with the two previous posters, by the way.

@28mm WW2Fanatik
Your first post in this thread was so far out that I was certain you were being ironic.
Your second post broke that impression. The third post you made is again, so over the top exaggerated madness just like the first post that it has to be irony.

So you are either a very funny guy, or crazy if you actually mean what you're writing here.

As has been mentioned, this board is called "Flames of War board", not "Battlefront board". Not such an insignificant difference. And as I have shown in my previous post with the list of threads on this board, for some reason a majority of stuff does not get removed yet still have "nothing" to do with Flames of War according to the derailed logic. Only increasing the impression of a completely irrational and random sniping of posts on this board, removal at whim as it seems.
No kind of consistency in the rules and policy of crosspost/post removal.

And this is a good example of why rules specific boards are a bad idea.

I an rather at a loss on this whole what is and what is not FoW thing.

I play FoW a lot. The vast majority of my models are not Battlefront. I can't post photos of my armies on the BF site because they are mainly not BF models. Can I now not post links to pictures of my Flames of War armies on this forum?

To be honest, why not just delete the FoW sub forum and put everything back in the WWII forum like it used to be?

To be honest, why not just delete the FoW sub forum and put everything back in the WWII forum like it used to be?

If you want to discuss 15mm models for use in WWII games, then go to the appropriate board – WWII Models Review.

Makes sense to me but when I started a discussion about PSC models it got moved to the WWII board. Life is too short to try to apply logic to TMP.

To be honest, a quick review shows that a majority of other posters in other forum topics shoudl all be removed/relocated, so why the harsh treatment of FoW….

If I painted models from xyz and post it to FoW as an example of my new unit for FoW I would also cross post it to the modeling page, but… it is first and foremost a FoW post showing my FoW unit…. regardless of make mor manufacture….

Locking down the FOW board to just FoW statements and BF product is contradicting all of the other board topics….

If I see a NON sci-fi SPECIFIC made model being used in a sci-fi board topic if should NOT be there and thus removed, yet this is the case for ALL other boards…. and I mean ALL other boards.

So I ask again, why pick on the FoW boards alone when I can go to any other board and find topics that are better suited for another board? And why then even have cross posting?

@jameshammyhamilton

Good idea imo,as most of the stuff here has "generic" WW2 wargaming relevance as well (which is why stuff gets cross posted to begin with).

Though it is nice to have a FoW board it's obvious that it does not work the way meant to according to the one's making up the rules. I can only imagine it got a board of its own because the amount of FoW related posts was higher than the "generic WW2" posts in the old boards.

Rule specific boards work very well, just take a look over at Lead Adventure Forum. It has numerous subforums dedicated to specific rulesets. However, LAF does not have a crosspost ability, and crossposting is prohibited. It is also assumed that once you post something in a specific part of the forum it is there for a reason and have been posted there on purpose.

Here on TMP FoW board it seems like the posts are treated differently. If someone believes the stuff he posts should be on this board, or crossposted here – the Editor or any moderator may have a different opinion and makes his own judgment on what is proper. So it's obviously not working here.

And the reason why it is not working is really easy to explain. Lack of proper rules. If it really is as simple as "only BF models and discussions directly and strictly related to BF/FoW" , as insane as it sounds – (because then people can just stick to the Battlefron forum) and the Editor loses a chunk of users and potential visitor count/revenue. But with such a straight rule you would get some kind of order.

However, I can't tell if there is such a rule in place. And if it is in place, then it is being followed so poorly by the Editor and moderators – and is so little known by the forum users – that all we get is this random removal of posts that make no sense at all. Why is one post removed when another of equal content remains?

Since enough people volunteered to support a new board, the Flames of War board has been created.

You now have one year to show that this board merits its creation, by sustaining enough topics (10 topics per month is the guideline).

In general, posts to the Flames of War board SHOULD NOT be crossposted to the WWII Rules or WWII Discussion boards. This board is now the place for discussing Flames of War.

If you are not interested in Flames of War, remember that you can go to the WWII boards list and mark that you don't want to see topics from that board on your homepage.

TMP link

From the board front page

For discussion of anything related to this set of rules.

Posts that are just pictures of toys, however pretty, go in the Gallery boards.

Correct. Your topic had no Flames of War content.

That's a slippery slope, and very difficult to enforce consistently.

Sorry, I don't mean to fan the 'flames of war' (no pun intended) here, but my interpretation of the 'rules' as to what is allowed on the FoW board is true, i.e. no discussion of non-BF products are allowed.

Lion in the Stars: 'That's really kinda funny, considering that BF explicitly allows other manufacturers' miniatures to be used at BF-sponsored national tournaments.'

And I applaud them for it. But there's a big difference between simply tolerating their use and actively encouraging them.

From what I've seen on the FoW board, many posts are so-called 'reviews' of new PSC plastic kits that are not only superior in quality but also cheaper than their BF counterparts. What they really are are advertisements of PSC. This is tantamount to 'adding insult to injury' on this board, which is FoW/BF's 'turf.' It's like selling PC's in an Apple store.

Surely you can see why a line has to be drawn somewhere.

@28mmWW2Fanatik

Now you are really made me shake my head in disbelief.

Is this FoW board actually bought and paid for by Battlefront as an extension to their own? What the heck does it matter if someone posts a review for models they find useful for FoW. Are the users of this board meant to be blind and ignorant to the other 15mm WW2 ranges outside of what Battlefront is offering?

And I can assure you that the only reason you hear about "this or that manufacturer being cheaper and providing superior in quality" is simply because they are. Is it suddenly prohibited to even suggest that there are alternatives? That sounds like GW' mafia methods.

I respect Battlefront and the rules on their own forum by not posting stuff from other manufacturers. Pardon me for not knowing that TMP Flames of War board was part of their internet domain.

This whole discussion has turned into such an absurd display of rules and excuses for those rules that it's hard to comprehend what I'm actually reading in this thread. And it is all posted in all seriousness. Just plain unbelievable.

Cards on the table The Editor. Does Battlefront own this board, if that's the case it would explain a lot.

What I don't understand here is how this board is FoW/Battlefront's 'turf. Do they pay for this board? Do they sponsor it?
If I go to the Apple Store then Apple are paying the rent, Apple are paying the staff.
If BF are paying Bill for a board then fair enough, just tell us that is what is happening!!
If they do then we should be told this. They can then have editorial control and prevent posts that they feel compete with their products. However, if the board is just a TMP board then it should not be subject to commercially driven censorship.
I'd further point out again that the board is about the rules, not BF product. If players want to post here with pics of WW2 stuff that they use for FoW then that should be allowed, whatever the manufacturer. Similarly if someone wants to post a new FiB or PSC release then that should be alloed. What should not be posted here is an article about Other WW2 rules unless it is a direct and referenced comparison with Fow, eg Armour/ antitank performance in FoW and Battlefield Commander compared.

This is a rules board, not a product site. I have vast amounts of of BF product in my wargames room, probably 20 standard armies worth. I also mix in other manufacturers figures. An attempt in the UK to enforce BF only models in comps would be laughed at, the players would not stand for it.

Enforcing relevance to a set of rules on a board is fine, but extending that to the range of models and figures smacks of corruption.

Best Regards
Roy

"That's a slippery slope, and very difficult to enforce consistently."

This sort of statement could invite the nuclear option, especially if accusations of bias are made on moderating crossposts to a policy that actually seems to be completely anti- bias in nature.

I can play FoW with entirely Peter Pig figures and tanks and should be able to discuss those here!!!

It depends on what the discussion is.

If you are simply discussing Peter Pig models as one of many companies that make models for, say, North Africa British – put that on one of the main WWII boards, because your discussion isn't relevant only to Flames of War.

The same is true of discussing Battlefront models – if you're just discussing the models, that's not rules-specific, it should go on the general WWII boards where everyone can enjoy the discussion.

If you want to share pictures of pretty WWII tanks, that belongs on the WWII Gallery, because the tanks aren't specific to any single ruleset.

If your discussion is somehow relevant only to Flames of War, then it can go on this board. As an example, if you want to show how you've based your Peter Pig models for a FoW force, that can go here just fine.

Only if the discussion is limited to FoW and makes no reference whatsoever to Peter Pig products. Any comment or review of non-Battlefront products are strictly prohibited, especially if they're cast in a favorable light.

Nonsense, there is no such policy.

A can of worms indeed. If people are allowed to discuss the merits of the products of BF's competitors on the FoW board, non-GW/Citadel products would have to be permitted on the Warhammer Fantasy and 40K boards as well, or our esteemed editor would be branded a hypocrite for having a double standard. This could have far-reaching repercussions and a 'domino effect' for other boards.

…non-GW/Citadel products would have to be permitted on the Warhammer Fantasy and 40K boards as well…

Same rules apply to those boards as well, and always have.

"Nonsense, there is no such policy" that any comment or review of non-Battlefront products are strictly prohibited, especially if they're cast in a favorable light.

But it is a policy that reviews of non-BF models (or BF models for that matter) cannot be posted on the FoW board since they're non-rules-specific and can be equally used with other rules, right?

Just to be clear that by saying 'no such policy' doesn't mean that you are allowed to post reviews of ANY 15mm product on this board. Or show off the pretty pictures of said models.

That settles it! It doesn't get any fairer or clearer than that.

I think this topic illustrates that the proliferation of boards is simply leading to confusion, dilution of content and frustration.

I think the simple way to get thing right is just to not start any threads :shake: :(

Just what would be so damaging in discussing a non GW product on a Warhammer board??
If Bill sold Board naming rights to companies for their own paid space and told us all that this was so then I'd live with that. If, however, he says that BF pay nothing for this board and that other manufs products can be discussed here as long as the product is in an FoW context then that is fine.

Strikes me that 28mm is like the guy in a bar who urges two other mugs to have a fight and then disappears when the law arrives.

All Anatoli has to do is to make a point of stating the relevance of any posted pic to FoW when he postss.
Roy

Just what would be so damaging in discussing a non GW product on a Warhammer board??

You can, if it's relevant to Warhammer.

For example, if you're building a new unit of demons but you're using Reaper minis, that's fine to share on the Warhammer board because you're discussing a unit being built (and, presumably, based) specifically for Warhammer.

But no, you can't post to the Warhammer board about how great the new Elf models from Catapult Miniatures are, because that's a general fantasy topic and not pertinent to Warhammer. (And if TMP allowed that, then every generic fantasy topic would be crossposted to the Warhammer board, drowning out the Warhammer discussions…)

My question to the Editor is Why? Why police these things so heavily? Have there been complaints about the volume of non-Flames of War threads? Seems like you're splitting hairs here and I'm sure you have better things to do. You have an audience that uses the FoW board to discuss things specific to and peripheral to FoW. The lack of freedom to discuss certain topics on the FoW website's board is why you have an audience here. If you impose the same or similar limits on your board, then won't users gravitate somewhere else? One of those nose to spite the face kind of things.

Long story short, relax. Whether a post mentions FoW in particular or just discusses 15mm WW2 models in general or explains specifically how they can be used in FoW doesn't change the taste of mustard. Who cares?

Why police these things so heavily?

Obviously, I don't police these things very heavily. I do spot checks, and otherwise, I try to explain the rules so people know what to do.

Who cares?

If the rules aren't enforced, then everyone with a favorite miniatures company that makes WWII models will crosspost all of their topics to the Flames of War board "just in case" somebody might be interested, and then any true Flames of War discussion will be drowned out. And if that happens, then the Flames of War board will be nuked because it will have become redundant…

For example, if you're building a new unit of demons but you're using Reaper minis, that's fine to share on the Warhammer board because you're discussing a unit being built (and, presumably, based) specifically for Warhammer.

Didn't Anatoli's post get removed from here for doing exactly that?

Didn't Anatoli's post get removed from here for doing exactly that?

No, it was just pretty pictures.

Simple question given what has been said already

What IS the point of the cross post facility?

What IS the point of the cross post facility?

Some topics legitimately belong on more than one board.

Whenever I post a generl question about models, I try to cross-post it the Flames of War Board, or vice versa.
why?
Several reasons.
The "nice" reason is that I want it ti find a wide audience where appropriate.
The "not-nice" answer is that TMP is full of … strongly opinionated types who would cut off their noses to spite their faces. They turn off the FoW Board, just because. So, if I wanted an answer to a model or availability question, it might be more productive to cross-post to both Model review AND Flames of War, because those who turn off Boards might have one or the other turned ff, and they might the answer I "need".
The fact that I consider such behavior pinheaded is besides the point. I just have to cater to it.
AND sometimes I forget.
Wuldn't it be better for Dear Editor to simly "crosspost and remove", rather than delete? You do THAT all the time.

I don't see much point to policing threads and boards for relevancy, but I don't own the place.

And to all the poeple grumbling that this proves why rules-specific Boards are Bad Things, they were voted in. NOT with a majority, but with enough support to guarantee that they would get traffic. And they do.