"Keep Ultra Modern articles off TMP front page" Topic

I come here to TMP to be entertained in my chosen hobby of miniatures and wargames. I see far to many headlines for the Ultra Modern Boards which makes it appear like I'm reading the daily newspaper – something I want to avoid coming here.

SHOULD the articles for the Ultra Modern Board go straight into the said Board for viewing and not onto the TMP front page. Are we experiencing a mission creep from miniatures to reality? It's too much!!

Change or don't change?

You can deselect messages to that page from showing on your front page, which would solve the problem.

All you have to do is uncheck the UltraModern Board from your preferences:

Click on "Message Board" from the menu on the left of the Home Page.
Click on "Modern Boards"
Uncheck "Ulatrmodern (2004 – 2104)" in the "Display on Homepage?" column.

Simples!

Are we experiencing a mission creep from miniatures to reality? It's too much!!

Apart from fantasy & sci-fi, all historic (old & new) war gaming is based on real life reality!

I'm a bit of a fan of freedom of speech, even on a small format like this … I feel if you see an article that does not interest you … don't read it. As noted, you can choose what boards you can have on your TMP page … But I'll go with what the group decides … very democratic … yes ?

20thmaine,

Oh man, don't make that the first answer you should have waited until later …

OK, well played, very helpful. Rant over. Thank you.

Uncheck it. The actual gaming discussion takes place in the Modern and Cold war boards.

I've been wondering the same thing. I thought the "Ultramodern" board's purpose was to discuss modern wargaming. I have intrest in modern wargaming and wold like to read about them. It would seem that the Ultramodern board is being used to express opinions about about current events. There doesn't even seem to be even an attempt to make some kind of tenous connection to the hobby in many posts.

I don't want to turn off the board because of the gaming interest that I have and the (few) posts that actually talk about gaming. I would ask that, as difficult as it may be, that people exercise some consideration for others and stick to topics related to gaming.

I think we all understand the true purpose of the ultra modern board.

I agree with xraysvision. Most of the posts don't have anything to do with gaming and are simply regurgitation of news headlines.

Action taken

Same old, same old… Some folks got no self discipline. If you don't think you want to read something, don't read it. Why, oh why do we have to continue to see someone saying "I don't like it. Make it go away."?
I don't see any of this ultramodern stuff unless someone posts about it on boards I have selected to view. So, it seems to me that you're violating your own request.
I know a way to solve that problem…

Why you start eh! You no like, deselect.
Now to stir da sauce that a isa meaningful, yum tasty
Cio.

Many of us game current events. So by all means uncheck the box if you don't want to see the articles. I will remain 'checked.' :)

Most of the posts don't have anything to do with gaming and are simply regurgitation of news headlines.

And the wars prior to 2004 were NOT mentioned in the news?

Crud, we were discussing the Georgian War or whatever you want to call it *as it happened* in 2008!

Current events are the springboard for gaming. Need the various troopers with all their different weapons and gear, any new modifications to the vehicles, maybe new ammo types too.

All of those are important points for gamers. Heck, I have ID'd 9 different pieces of gear that are needed to properly model vehicles from Iraq and Afghanistan: Rhino IED pre-detonator, Warlock IED jammer (the gumdrop-shaped antenna), Duke IED jammer (rod-shaped antenna), Boomerang gunshot detector (ring on a 'mast'), XM101 CROWS (remote weapons station for Buffalo and M1114 armored humvee), 'Protector' CROWS II (different from the XM101), Fire Support Sensor (for M1114s and Strykers), Abrams TUSK, Bradley BUSK, and I'm pretty sure there are other CROWS mounts that I don't have pictures of, yet.

And that doesn't count the various varieties of MRAPs, either.

the default setting for all boards should be off. forcing new members to turn on the boards they want when they register. that way uf they get offended, its their own fault.

I feel the same way about Fantasy posts- it's like porn, if you don't like it don't click on it…

Ultramodern has a problem not common to other boards because it does deal with current events.

The problem is that while current events can relate to wargaming topics, the posts often fail to draw that connection. Either by accident or design, they end up being commentary on policy rather than gaming.

I will reiterate that I am interested in modern gaming. "Unchecking" the box is not an option. Many times I end up opening and reading a portion of a post before determining that it is political commentary.

I don't find political commentary offensive, just inappropriate in this venue. There are plenty of places on the net do that. I just find it inconsiderate to subject people who are interested in reading about gaming on a gaming website to political commentary.

If the shoe fits…

The problem is that while current events can relate to wargaming topics, the posts often fail to draw that connetion

That is an interesting point and spot on. Interesting because an earlier post on the Utter Drivel Board (talking about an Italian actress without mentioning her enthusiasm for miniatures/wargames) was removed, whereas similar failings on the Ultramoden Board are overlooked and maybe even encouraged because of TMP Rule #1 – it's Bill's show and he can do what he wants.

How much of it is actually gaming discussion though?

This or that country produces a variant BTR or M113 and we get a news story posted. How many responses do you see with people actually talking about modelling it or it's stats in Modern Spearhead or showcasing a painted model?

How many TO&E discussions do you see?

How many scenarios do you see posted? Talk about gaming rules?

Actual discussion about how to build forces for a conflict? (and not just political talk with a throw away comment about "oh and Peter Pig makes a guy with an AK so you could game this")

Any discussion of actual military tactics and operations, as opposed to wishful thinking about this or that party?

Look at the front page of that board. I see maybe 5 or 6 gaming topics of the entire bunch, one of which I started. Take away any that were cross posted to multiple boards and just included ultra-modern and what is left?

Even the battle reports board is mostly stuff that fits under moderns or cold war. Vietnam, nato/warpac, arab-israeli wars, the odd afghanistan game.

Ultra-modern is not a gaming period, as evidenced by the almost complete lack of gaming content. Maybe someone out there does actually game ISIS or the Syrian civil war. If so, they aren't posting on TMP about it.

edit: Prove me wrong! Post a picture of your game. Make a post about gaming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to be wrong.

So we're left with a situation where mentioning cable news gets you DH'ed for talking about politics but speculating about whether [insert leader here] is doing enough to bomb [insert enemy here] is not.

Maybe it could be a gaming board. I'd encourage people to make it into that.
Maybe it's not and we should just be up front with the reasons it was created and I'll get some coffee and get over myself.

Hahahaha!
Looks more like you might see TMP Ultramodern articles on the front page of your newspaper ….

I already have Weasel, and very informative it has turned out to be. I think the real reason why wargaming posts are less frequent is because most of the posts are looking at possible ways, existing conflicts might develop or new conflicts start. In WWII we can have, 'what if posts', but the events are decided, we know who won, by how much and why. Every post about the current situation is a what if, which means politics, the great driver of conflict, is naturally to the fore.

Milites – yours was one of the exceptions I counted :)

though I'd add that even that discussion was not really "ultra modern" as such, though you may have intended that to be the target for the game you are working on.

so next year will the date of the board be updated to "2005-2015" and all posts relating to 2004 events be put into the modern board? :-)

Most posts on the U-M board are started by the infamous Tango01, so I look at it as a means for us to filter out his CA news postings that have nothing to do with wargaming if we want to. Just turn it off and voila'.

We must take the chaff with the wheat. Life is not homogenized pablum and some gritty bits are in the mix, so we must quietly "gurgitate" and endure such annoyances. Life is hard, but it beats the alternative! Read Ultra-modern – it'll do your immune system good!
Rod Robertson

Zargon, what's with the pidgin English and Italian stereotypes? Proving ?

I have no idea what the OP is talking about. I don't see any of this on my "front page." I usually don't even scroll down to see any of that stuff.

I just lurk in areas of my gaming interest. I just recently discovered this board. I saw it before and thought, that sounds boring.

But then one day I clicked on it and found out this was really the "TMP Soap Opera" board. Somewhat entertaining. So when you choose your areas of interest you only see stuff on the "front page" within those areas? Gee, I never knew that or cared. I thought someone was just being nosy.

If wargames are based on war and if as Carl von Clausewitz said – war is an extension of politics by other means – then its seems that there is no way to avoid all politics in a discussion of wargames. As long as posters don't try to force their own political beliefs on others, what real harm can come from discussing the political roots and implications of conflicts and the games we play about those conflicts?
We do not live in a vacuum and it occurs to me that to try and enforce a political vacuum on others seems as counterproductive as imposing political beliefs on others. When one explains the politics of an ultra-modern conflict, one educates others and that seems to me to be a good thing. Even if what is said is inaccurate or slightly biased the truth (or some version of the truth) will come out of the thread by others' comments. This discussion informs and helps readers to make and play better games in a more realistic context and seems therefore to be a net plus for the hobby.
If someone is blatantly and knowingly promoting a political agenda and continues to do so repeatedly then they should be holidayed in the Dawghouse, but to hide threads or lock someone up for simply offering information or interpretation of information seems a bit excessive. If I betray a bias towards freedom of expression and declaim the the constriction of public debate perhaps that is a DH'able offense but to simply explain the political context of a conflict somewhere in the world which someone is thinking about gaming is, IMHO, good for the hobby. To muzzle such would be bad for the hobby.
The very act of playing and discussing wargames is a political act promoting certain political values such as militarism and determinism, so if this rule is applied rigidly the raison d'etre for TMP comes crashing down.
So let's all be a little more tolerant of each others ideas and words and enrich the hobby with lively and informed debate and discussion.
Rod Robertson

I would support disabling cross-posting to or from the Ultramodern board.

Maybe we really need to get rid of all the news articles and refocus on gaming?

I admit I struggle not responding to the news one especially as most of the ones posted are badly written rubbish (especially the aviation articles e.g. top 5 bombers/fighters by some clueless hack).

Maybe we really need to get rid of all the news articles and refocus on gaming?

What a novel idea! We could start a wargaming forum that way!

But seriously: the UM board reeks and has little to nothing to do with wargaming. Just turn it off and stifle/ignore the right people and you are left with a half decent wargame forum still.

I like gaming Moderns, and although it is true that many threads in the Ultramodern board are not directly related to wargaming, some of them serve me as inspiration for setting up games.

Turning off the UM board kills several birds with one stone. TOM is actually an enjoyable place to visit again.

Well, here we go again.

Many posts have nothing to do directly with gaming. Such as:
TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

Pray tell, what's the difference? Part of the fun of gaming for many of us is learning the history behind the figures. This is just ultra recent history.

Font its called humour… And does not 'venezia sta affondando' sound Italian? I would be enlightened if you could say different.
I tend to Not take all this anguish and eyes fluttering over something that cannot impact on ones life.
I have my views you have yours and we should besides respecting each others not get noses out of joint over it all.
Again Deselect is an option.
Cheers

I tend to agree with Rod R above , but I understand the feelings aired. I only ever read a small number of posts…that's my choice.
? If you don't like , or are not interested ..don't look.. that's your freedom of choice.
Eg; I never look at the the W40K , fantasy , or 18C Boards ..because I'm not interested. My free choice.

Today more than ever,.. War IS Politics by 'other means'. tf would not a discussion of Ultramodern warfare be incomplete if we were to ignore Ultramodern Politics.? The two are inseparable.

My planned next AK47 army will be a IS/Janjaweed -themed force. …Just purchased the motor transport from Peter Pig. …and I want an excuse to deploy camels .. just don't see enough camels on the wargames table.

Capt jimmi:
The Soviets deployed camel riding infantry during early World War II so have at it!
Rod Robertson.

I agree with Rod and some others …

If wargames are based on war and if as Carl von Clausewitz said – war is an extension of politics by other means – then its seems that there is no way to avoid all politics in a discussion of wargames. As long as posters don't try to force their own political beliefs on others, what real harm can come from discussing the political roots and implications of conflicts and the games we play about those conflicts?
We do not live in a vacuum and it occurs to me that to try and enforce a political vacuum on others seems as counterproductive as imposing political beliefs on others.

Again, like my simple mind thinks … if you ain't interested in topic … don't read it … or change your settings …

If you are a historical gamer then it is difficult if not impossible to separate history topics from history gaming.

They go together. So be careful when talking about restricting discussions to only gaming. It may have unintended consequences.

Personally I don't see the need for an UM board. But as it doesn't affect me, I ignore it.

If posts are political or otherwise inappropriate, click the complaint button (exclamation point) and notify the Editor. If he agrees he'll take action by monitoring, editing or removing the post or by warning or doghousing those who posted the inappropriate content. If he doesn't agree, at least you blew off some steam.

OK, well played, very helpful. Rant over. Thank you.

Kudos. Great response.

Ultra Modern is just "CA" resurrected under a different name. It is impossible to discuss gaming in current scenarios without referencing the religio-political drives of the current wars, ergo "current affairs" will be aired copiously in discussing said-wars and the sides thereof….

With greatest respect to GWA, it's entirely possible:

If I am discussing whether a platoon level force of [insert insurgent faction here] resembles typical middle eastern organizations or not, I don't need to discuss their politics beyond their name.

We just do it anyways, because everyone (myself included) feels the world needs to hear our stupid opinions on things we're not qualified about :-)

If you're going to go in-depth as to cause and effect relating to your tabletop battles, the religio-political agendas must be discussed. If all you want is to put Taliban on one side and US infantry backed Afghans on the other side with a village in between, set up victory points and have at it, then of course, nothing from the real world has to enter into the gaming at all….

GWA – Right, that's my point though.

I know plenty of people who enjoy world war 2 gaming and their understanding of the relationships between the allies and the axis is limited to "we fought the germans and japanese".

Some of them still have a pretty good grasp on the basics of playing a game, they can tell a Sherman from a Pershing and know how to position an infantry platoon on the tabletop.

They wouldn't have what I'd call a historical base of knowledge but they have what they need to play the game.

The Ultra modern board is not populated by the former type of gamers though and despite a few spirited attempts to prove me wrong, immediately descended back into political meanderings that occasionally touch on vaguely military aspects.

Wouldn't this be the case regardless of the causes of modern warfare? It's much easier to hold a "technical" interest in wars receding into the past. But current affairs are all about "what the heck is going on, really?" You can't actually wargame a modern/contemporary conflict without developing the motivations of the sides as the causus belli. The end hasn't been written, ergo the technicalities take a back seat to the causes. Once a war is finished and its generation of participants are either few in numbers or gone forever then the technical aspects remain for armchair generals to ponder over. The history is known and inside the sealed books. But today's wars are all about the mystery of what will occur tomorrow….

You are of course correct. My question to you is:

Do you actually see those discussions occurring?
For that matter, do you believe they even could, on a wargames forum?

The typical thread goes:

1: News site says something about ISIS.

2: Poster one says ISIS is bad.

3: Poster two agrees with poster one.

4: Poster three says something sarcastic about past foreign policy.

5: Poster four says to use more bombs.

End thread.

Alternatively:

1: News site has a photo of a [insert vehicle here] with a 21mm gun instead of the customary 19mm gun.

2: Poster one says looks cool.

3: Poster two makes a joke (if its not western) or congratulates it (if its western)

End thread.

You can't actually wargame a modern/contemporary conflict without developing the motivations of the sides as the causus belli.

Why not? Or, possibly, why can I wargame a Napoleonic conflict without doing so?

I understand feelings have something to do with it. I personally have stronger feelings about wars my ancestors fought in almost and over 100 years ago than some modern conflicts amoung people with whom I have no relation. That is not to say that I don't care about people under the duress of war as human beings. But the stories from my grandfather about fighting against the Bolsheviks and Communists will probably always be more "real" to me, even if I have personally fought in conflicts physically closer to those modern conflicts than the ones in Dzed's stories.

And let's not even begin about the centuries of wars fought in the settling of America from the other side of my family…