Winston Smith | 25 Dec 2014 11:25 a.m. PST |
The new assistant editors have all admitted that they have a limited if not non existent wargaming experience. One can hardly expect them to know all the nuances of the American Revolution. Among others. What I propose is that the Editor in Chief appoint assistant moderators with limited powers limited to crossposting threads. For instance if a thread on painting Lee's Legion is posted only to 18th century painting guides, the assistant moderator could cross post it to American Revolution. MAYBE correct spelling in the title but nothing else. No post editing or "fact checking". Also he could be able to crosspost WWII scenarios to appropriate rules boards. TSATF and Victorian Colonial from 19th C is another possibility. And if perusing the archives they come across old threads that could be reclassified that would be within their limited powers. I am sure the OFM would be amenable to being the AWI guru. Someone could volunteer for Late Victorian, War of 1812, etc. If we have new Boards, why not have someone with vague knowledge of the period fill them? I deliberately did not make this a poll suggestion because that is not appropriate for a vote. The only one with a vote here is Bill. |
Rebelyell2006 | 25 Dec 2014 12:38 p.m. PST |
I am sure the OFM would be amenable to being the AWI guru. How modest of you to nominate him. But what does this have to do with eating Irish babies? |
Oh Bugger | 25 Dec 2014 2:07 p.m. PST |
Swift response there. Oh and compliments o' the season one and all. |
Ed Mohrmann | 25 Dec 2014 2:27 p.m. PST |
Hmmmm…I am tempted to corral Oh and lock him in his room…. |
Ivan DBA | 25 Dec 2014 3:25 p.m. PST |
I agree with the Winston. This is actually a very good idea, and is the norm at most other wargames forums. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 25 Dec 2014 3:33 p.m. PST |
The only reason I'm nervous about this idea is that this is the weakest part of the database right now. It would be tempting fate to monkey too much here. Better to wait for TMP 4.0. |
Weasel | 25 Dec 2014 3:43 p.m. PST |
For what its worth, keep this idea in your notepad Bill. It's a good one and will lighten up the general admin load quite a bit to take care of mis-posted threads and whatnot. |
John the OFM | 25 Dec 2014 7:12 p.m. PST |
OK. Winston was just proposing that some few posts get crossposted to the right places. We have always valued the information we get here, and just thought that Management could use some help. No biggie, but just keep it in mind. Obviously Winston and I have some skin in the game with the new lovely Boards we have proposed and had accepted. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 25 Dec 2014 8:06 p.m. PST |
For what its worth, keep this idea in your notepad Bill. It's a good one and will lighten up the general admin load quite a bit to take care of mis-posted threads and whatnot. Absolutely. |
wrgmr1 | 25 Dec 2014 8:29 p.m. PST |
LAF has moderators on each board, so I agree with the this so that posts are modified appropriately. |
Winston Smith | 25 Dec 2014 9:28 p.m. PST |
I have no intention of doing a Wikipedia or anything and changing what they wrote. That would be ridiculous. Just herding them into the right corral. There is a lot of valuable old information in the archives that could use crossposting to appropriate Boards. |
JezEger | 27 Dec 2014 6:02 a.m. PST |
Or you could just do something crazy like delete most of the boards as irrelevant. For example, Nap Land, Nap naval…. any discussion, bat rep or gallery posts would end up crossposted in those anyway. There is a Principles of War board that has 4 posts in a year, one a welcome, one that has nothing to do with POW and one which redirects you to the POW Yahoo group. Why is it there? I could probably find lots of other boards which do the same thing. Is the multiple posts one of the things that is slowing the back up each day? |
Winston Smith | 27 Dec 2014 6:09 a.m. PST |
Four posts slow down the backup? |
etotheipi | 27 Dec 2014 7:27 a.m. PST |
Four posts slow down the backup? Well, yes, any post in the system will add some time to the back up. However, I believe the point was that the maintenance is reindexing. Reindexing time is a function of the total number of posts in the system, ergo, removing a board that has very little activity yet a large number of posts could make a significant improvement in performance for a minimal loss of relevant content. |
JezEger | 27 Dec 2014 9:29 a.m. PST |
Correct. I'm no systems guy, but I know our IT guys hated attachments on group internal emails for that reason. One file becomes multiple, which repeated over and over clogs the whole system with duplicated trash. Its not just that board, that was just an example. Take Naps, what realistically couldn't be discussed within land and naval only? If more modern, perhaps land, naval, air. Nicely painted ships…naval. Bat rep of Waterloo…land. Book on Trafalgar… naval. etc etc. Right now a book on Trafalgar is probably in at least nap discussion, nap naval, nap media, thus greatly increasing the post count and back up time. Now times that by several thousand posts….. |