"FAQ Update: "No Cheerleading" [Ultramodern]" Topic

We have also updated the FAQ to make it clear that it is inappropriate on the Ultramodern board, where contemporary military matters are often discussed, to "cheerlead" or promote particular nations, factions, or groups.

Comments such as "I hope they rot in hell!" or "Go USA!" or "Nuke them from orbit" are inappropriate for discussion on this board.

Appreciate the update.

Then why have the Board in the first place?
It is an invitation to jingoism.

Can we nuke them all?

LOL just kidding

If you can't avoid jingoism, that that isn't the board for you.

I had to go look that up, had no idea what it even was.

I thought that was the purpose of the board.

Where can I go to jeer at those horrible Bosrovians and their disgusting Bosrovian customs, manners and cuisine?

As a Bosrovian I am quite proud of that.

You can always suggest a Bosrovian Jeering Board through Poll suggestions.

You heard the man. No siding with the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians (or vice versa) or the US in their actions against ISIS (or vice versa) in Iraq and Syria on TMP.

Does this mean a ban on those pointless, rascist, and generally unfounded slurs that crop up when new items of non-US equipment are mentioned?

Good news

Perhaps a jingoism board would head that off then….

Have you thought this through Bill? There's a world of difference between posting comments such as the examples you gave, and, for example, posting that you think the Ukraine is right to try and take back control of its territory, or that the various Muslim militias need support to take on ISIS etc.. Or maybe not. These new rules are as clear as mud.

"Go USA" is inappropriate? Are you fracking kidding me?

Dan

Well if you allow "Go USA" you'd also have to allow "Go Russia!/China!/Taliban!/ISIS!/<insert name of favourite team here>!

ISIS is a bunch of puppy lovers and don't you suggest otherwise…,

Up the Arsenal!

Go Forest Green Rovers!

Well now you've just upset the Robins supporters

There's a great saying hanging on my office wall.

"The Early Bird gets the worm.
But it's the second mouse that gets the cheese."

The Ultra-modern board (more properly the "Now" Board cannot help but be a dawghouse- trap. Passions are too intense today about these things that will be on the board, one way or the other, one side or the other, and it is practically impossible to toe the line.

You cannot blame people for their passions, and they overflow into what they write. You would have to have superhuman beings to be able to divorce their passions. My Goodness, look at what happens on the Napoleonics board when someone says "Napoleon was a horrible guy" or Napoleon was a saint." If passions reach that point about a subject now 200 years old, what can you expect from a board about stuff 20 minutes old.

That's why I looked into it and moved on.

The news brings me sturm und drang enough.

Otto

Otto nailed it.

He did indeed Pete. Just get rid of the board and be done with it.

Another vote for what Otto said.

You can turn off ANY Board you don't like.

I agree with this. But yes Otto expressed exactly what I feel too. I feel there will always be differences over what is and what isn't cheerleading.

You cannot blame people for their passions,

Nope. Passions, as you put them, are personal and private things, and as such, beyond the reproach of society.

and they overflow into what they write.

But you can blame them for that, if it is inappropriate to do so in the forum where they write. Voicing your opinion is no longer a private, but a public act.

You would have to have superhuman beings to be able to divorce their passions.

Hardly. People write dispassionately and anlytically about controversial subjects every day. It's one of the foundations of having neutral voice in reference materials. Also, one of the most effective ways of influencing others toward your point of view is to remove your passions and biases from your description of the events.

Go Otto! Oops, sorry.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe…

It isn't that hard. Talk about gaming -- mechanics, equipment, TO&E, rules -- and leave the politics out of it.

People are upset about this because it's an echo chamber right now.

Throw in one or two supporters of the fundamentalist insurgencies and the entire board descends into flame wars.

Besides, if you really think the world wants to hear about your political opinion, open a face book account and bother your family with it.

The Ultra-modern board (more properly the "Now" Board cannot help but be a dawghouse- trap. Passions are too intense today about these things that will be on the board, one way or the other, one side or the other, and it is practically impossible to toe the line.

Mark this on your calendar. On this day in history I actually agreed with Otto on something.

If this were ever to be taken to a court of Law, I could argue that Ultramodern Board is set up to entrap the innocent. It's like the speed trap on Route 62.

Za Rudinya! Just kidding

I would cheer what Otto said but I don't want to be DH'd

Just change the name of the board to the Libria Board and make sure that all who access it take their regular dose of "Prozium".

YouTube link

Unless you're one if those lucky few who can watch a boxing match, or a basketball, soccer, hockey or American football game without taking sides and vocalizing your passion for whichever side you took.

Or better yet, as others have said or insinuated, stop baiting us and do away with this seductive, tempting and vile board. After all, most of what's discussed has nothing to do with miniatures.

Dan

I suppose that's a conversation that maybe should have been had.
How much gaming discussion will actually take place?
I don't mean in the vague "oh and who makes insurgents in 15mm?" fig-leaf that people threw around in the beginning.
I mean actual gaming conversation.

There's been a few attempts to discuss how to actually run a "today" scenario but nothing ever really comes out of it.
TO&E discussions? Would be relevant but aren't happening.

Speculation about this or that slight variation of this or that tank? Might be interesting but I don't see a single miniatures manufacturer or rules writer getting involved in those threads.

Speculation about China invading this or that place. Has any one actually posted an AAR, discussed a game they actually ran or a campaign they played in a single one of those threads?

In part, it's an internet thing: All it takes is one person saying something crass and one person responding to it and off we go.
By the time someone with actual gaming content decides to post it, we're 30 posts into a flame war where people are thumping their chests and spilling all the political one-liners that their facebook buddies think are very clever.

I mean, hell, I'm working on a modern platoon level game. I think it'll be pretty killer and the people who've tested it have been really excited about it, and I nearly canned the idea because judging from these forums, it seemed people aren't actually /playing/ moderns as much as using the idea as a vessel for political pontification.
Eventually, I was convinced otherwise but damn.

If the hooting and hollering dies down a bit, maybe we can either get some actual gaming related conversations going or the whole thing will just end up being a CNN news feed for people too old to use RSS and we can go back to our lives.

It's not impossible, folks. Just exercise some self-restraint and don't let your passions color your comments. TMP may be more rah-rah America-centric than other sites but there are always those with views different from yours.

While it's difficult for us to see how someone would favor the Taliban and ISIS over the red, white and blue, consider that there are allegedly 'dozens' of American citizens fighting with those Islamist groups right now (like that McCain guy who got killed).

discussions? Would be relevant but aren't happening.

If the editors can put the kibosh on the politics, I would be happy to have the type of discussion you are discussing (all of them, not just the one I quoted). However, you are correct, as a manufacturer, I don't want to post my personal or professional stuff in the middle of a flurry of

"You suck!"

"No, you suck!"

Go Bears! Packers suck! No, wait -- Vikings truly suck! And Detroit is lame!

Oops, maybe this should go to the Modern Sports board.

The very time frame of this board hits too close to home. We all, pretty much, "have skin in the game" on these topics and it's understandable that people get passionate about these subjects…myself included. In fact I just racked up my first few DELETED posts since checking this board out for the first time the other day. That hasn't happened on any of the other "history" boards.

Now I am one opinionated SOB, but I just don't seem to get as worked up over who was the better General; Lee or Grant, or which was the superior fighting system; Phalanx or Legion?

It's all about time and distance. And if we're talking about ISIS, for instance, I'm not real concerned with their TO&E, which ruleset best simulates their tactics, or what color to paint their trousers(I know, black). I'm worried about my country or family eventually being attacked, so hence the passion.

Long story short, you'll get these same results I think, as long as you keep this type of board.

I'm worried about my country or family eventually being attacked, so hence the passion.

Dealing with that worry by being worried continues the worry.

The real best way to do something productive with that worry is to consider their TO&E tactics, EOB, goals, strategies, likely attack vectors, etc. without skewing the discussion. I'll give you a bye on the trouser color.

Also, if you want to see people get visibly worked up about Lee and Grant, you should move to Southern Virginia…

Now, its just me, but I've always felt wargaming a conflict which is still actually in progress (or extremely recent) is rather distasteful, not to mention somewhat disrespectful…but thats just me.

Christot, It's not just you, it's me as well.

I've been a wargamer for more than 30 years, would never have considered playing a Falklands War game (for example) till quite recently (knowing some who participated) but the "30 year rule" seems a good one to me.

I'd personally not want to play games set in current Afghanistan or Middle East but have no problem with those that choose to, especially not those players who have actually served ' over there' – they, rather than the armchair experts, have the absolute right to play whatever they like.

"Christot, It's not just you, it's me as well.

I've been a wargamer for more than 30 years, would never have considered playing a Falklands War game (for example) till quite recently (knowing some who participated) but the "30 year rule" seems a good one to me."

Yes, it's the two of you, but it isn't EVERYONE. Lots of people play Iraq and Afghanistan (including many vets of the conflicts) and have a great time with it. So your distaste, valid though it may be, is not and cannot be the final arbiter in these sort of issues.

And the "30 years rule" is more of a guideline… 8)=

Nazrat, isn't that what I say in para 2? I'm not trying to impose my opinions on any other gamer, just exercising my right to express an opinion that may not concur with yours.

And you're right, it's a 30- year guideline, not a rule – for others that might be a 50 or even 100 year break that would be appropriate, for others it might be 30 minutes!

I guess one could argue that the way most of our games take place (two full strength, text book forces with plenty of ammo and fuel, engaging each other in an empty area with no political restrictions, clear objectives that result in an instant win and a 35% casualty rate for the winner) is basically science fiction to begin with :-)

I'm worried about my country or family eventually being attacked, so hence the passion.

If it helps, I'm worried about my second home (Ukraine) and my wife's friends and family being attacked too, yet I would still play wargames, even those around the current situation in Ukraine. I would even play either side.

To me, these are just games. I am not taking on their ideology or political motivations. I am playing a game. If I was to play the Russian forces, I would still play to win in the knowledge that I am playing a game, and that no real people died. Perhaps all politicians should be made to play our wargames first, then be made to sit down and actually account for the number of losses their decisions have caused before they are allowed to use real armies, real lives?

GeoffQRF,

I'm not pooh-poohing the idea of gaming current events, I'm just giving my two cents on why things have a tendency to veer off the wargame track and into political opinions so quickly. I would have no problem gaming current events if they appealed to me, it's just that this type of warfare doesn't appeal to me that much.

I'm all about Panzers and Pikemen, my two main areas of interest, and had I been alive during those times and the figures available I would certainly would have been gaming them.

I hope all is well with your Ukrainian home.

I think the issue is less with gaming a contemporary conflict and more that people don't tend to be talking about gaming.

The discussions that erupt here are pretty much the same you'd see in the comments section on CNN or some such.