"Relevant Topics" Topic

Is it just me or are we starting to see lots and lots of "topics" that, while maybe mildly interesting, really aren't about gaming with miniatures?

Sure, I know, we are all free to participate or not. That isn't the point of the question. I'm wondering if we've discussed so much so often that we've more or less exhausted the useful topics.

For me, the original value to TMP and other hobby related discussion groups was talking about specifics rather than"idle" curiosities.

Frankly, as TMP travels further and further down this road, I find less reason to visit. I certainly hope this is only a natural phase that TMP is going through and the topics will return to matters of greater relevance.

You know, things like, where can I find a set of 15 mm baboons to decorate my African colonial era gaming – or even use for a modern photo safari game?
As opposed to, what is your favorite color of hat lace? I mean, really, who cares (unless you are trying to find out about a specific color of hat lace for a specific actual historical unit, of course)?

I'm guessing I'm not the first person to pose some variation of this question, either.

Umm. The fragmentation of the hobby and the exodus of numbers of active members from TMP might have more to do with it.

Frankly I seem to spend more time on FB and blogs for wargaming these days than forums, although of the fora I visit this one still has more of specific interest to me than those which mainly consist of photographs of fantasy figures.

It is also summer. TMP is always quiet in summer.

I think people would rather argue about politics than post gaming stuff.

Well, here are the most recent posts:

• Stepping up my painting skills – good video tutorials? (2)
  Chgowiz on Painting
• Arnhem in August
  uglyfatbloke on Wargaming Spouses
• Casting my own resin minis? (3)
  Necros on Sculpting
• Some 1866 action
  joaquin99 on 19th Century Gallery
• British Infantry : Guard vs Line (3)
  Milhouse on Napoleonic Discussion
• HOTT armies from my D&D campaign – Humans and Orcs
  Chgowiz on Fantasy Gallery
• Which dismounted American light dragoons should I paint? (4)
  Winston Smith on American Revolution
• Any advice on publishing via WargameVault? (4)
  CorpCommander on Game Design
• Modifying Rules for Mexican American War (4)
  Bernhard Rauch on Napoleonic Discussion
• article "Confederate Madness Then and Now" (12)
  avidgamer on ACW Media

They all seem to be "on topic" to me.

Bill, you're being deliberately selective.

There are lots of good posts on TMP: of that there is no doubt.

But there are, I think, a large number that are – as I said elsewhere – frankly tangential to wargaming.

I – and I think many others – think there are probably too many.

I – and I think probably many others – think that this number is probably increasing.

Just a feeling, you understand: I haven't got any actual evidence.

John T

And they might just not wanting to post anymore. To say that "The Best and Brightest" have left kinda does a disservice to the other posters still here and that IMO are still some of the "Best and Brightest" .

Robert

Bill, you're being deliberately selective.

No, I grabbed the most recent ten.

Bill

The most recent ten is conveniently atypical, I would argue:

I have "just grabbed" the last dozen from yesterday's front page (as they show on my PC):

George Gush's Renaissance Warfare – Airfix Magazine Articles (15)
Druzhina on Classical Asian Warfare

German Armoured Air deployable force (3)
Aotrs Commander on Modern Discussion (1946 to 2005)

Navy has no sailors for new aircraft carriers (6)
Tango01 on Ultramodern (2005-2015)

Chemical Tanks Preview
Tango01 on SF Gallery

Iran Ship Targets US Navy In The Gulf Of Aden (7)
Tango01 on Ultramodern (2005-2015)

How NASA Set New Horizons on Its Path to Pluto (4)
Tango01 on SF Media

Freeblades: Creatures of Faelon (5)
Tango01 on Fantasy Discussion

New Macedonian Figures in 28mm
Tango01 on Ancients Discussion

Missing in Action: Where Are the Arabs in the… (6)
Tango01 on Ultramodern (2005-2015)

Events Leading Up to WW2.
Tango01 on WWII Media

Arkham Knight Batman Preview on CKP
Tango01 on Superhero

British Government Wants More Drones And Special Forces (3)
Tango01 on Ultramodern (2005-2015)

Half of those are exactly the sort of posts I'm talking about: no relevance whatsoever to wargaming made in them: just modern military news feeds.

Now – as I've said – they may be interesting to some folks. Some of them are interesting to me, but that's not the point: they are, I would suggest, exactly what Early morning writer outlined in his OP:

Is it just me or are we starting to see lots and lots of "topics" that, while maybe mildly interesting, really aren't about gaming with miniatures?

and exactly what you inferred was an inaccurate assessment by him with your comment "They all seem to be "on topic" to me.".

Yes, the ten your 'grabbed' happen to be examples of good wargaming orientated posts. Rock on.

My dozen, simply cut – in a block – from yesterday, are examples of a 50/50 mix of wargaming orientated posts and what I described on that other thread TMP link thusly:

when it becomes someone's personal blog so they can post anything they like with little or no relevance to gaming and no effort made to include a gaming component – just an endless series of new links

I said that surely, TMP isn't Reddit.

Any thoughts on that?

John T

John T, my TMP must be broken, I didn't see any of those yesterday

Must be on a go slow, I got them today

About the "space" post – I'll remove it and remind Tango that the membership voted to keep space flight posts on the TMP Plus: Science board. TMP link

as for the others…

• Gush's Renaissance Rules is on topic
• German Armoured Air deployable force – he's looking for a unit organization for gaming, that's legit
• Navy has no sailors for new aircraft carriers – relevant to modern naval gamers, is it not?
• Chemical Tanks Preview – new wargaming products
• Iran Ship Targets US Navy In The Gulf Of Aden – again, seems relevant to modern naval gamers
• Freeblades: Creatures of Faelon – Fantasy kickstarter, entirely relevant
• New Macedonian Figures in 28mm – again, obviously relevant
• Missing in Action: Where Are the Arabs in the… – discussion of war against ISIS seems appropriate on Ultramodern…
• Events Leading Up to WW2. – Military history discussions are party of the hobby, are they not?
• Arkham Knight Batman Preview on CKP – it's a preview of a superhero model
• British Government Wants More Drones And Special Forces – certainly gives someone ideas for their near-future forces

So, seems like all ten are wargaming relevant.

And, if you don't like the modern discussions, it seems 90% of your problem would be solved by simply unsubbing from Ultramodern, right?

It might be better if you explained why you feel topic X is not relevant to wargaming (assuming it wasn't posted on a board that is explicitly not one of the wargaming related ones) so people can either support or discuss the relationship rather than have to guess which half you mean and why you mean it.

Bill – may I very politely suggest you re-read Early morning writer's OP?

He has said it all there. It's not just the topic itself but the nature of the post he seems to be complaining about, and I largely agree with him.

As I said several times, this isn't Reddit, surely?

John T

EDIT forgot to put the link in:
TMP link I think I've explained what I mean on this thread in some extra detail so I won't repeat myself

Kyote – I'm no 'Tango hater': I probably read 30% of his posts. But posts like his (not just him) are, I think, changing the nature of TMP, IMHO, and I think that was the OP's slant and (if it was) I largely agrree with that.

John T

Allow me to way back in for a moment. I was not trying to pick on anyone or damage anything. I was just making an observation that there seem to be more and more posts on topics unrelated to miniatures gaming. And since the very name of this site puts the focus on miniatures that seems a bit odd to me. I certainly support people's ability to discuss whatever they want, there are appropriate venues for differing discussions.

As to the changing nature of those who post here on TMP, yes, I've noticed this. For a time, there were far too many far too juvenile posts by individuals who were decidedly not in that age range. It took some doing, but that seems to have lessened to a very great degree and I think that is a good thing.

And then, for a while, a lot of the topics, relevant or not, were vastly more mature and focused.

But we still have a few individuals who, to my perception, post vast numbers of posts for no other purpose than to vie for being the top posters because the contents of their posts frequently just don't make much sense to the OP they are posting in. I can't say that is wrong or that those individuals don't have the right to do so. But there is a cost for TMP as a whole when such behavior dilutes the discussions.

And then there are those who use TMP as a personal means of waging 'mini-wars' without anything to do with miniatures – just check almost any post with 40 or more replies. Not always, but often you will find just a few TMPers (and frequently a very small group of the "usual suspects") back and forthing at each other. Sadly, they do not realize – or worse, don't care – about the damage such behavior does to TMP.

I know people who absolutely refuse to have anything to do with TMP because of that behavior.

And this is all too bad because TMP has the potential to be the single best resource for the hobby on the planet. It just takes all of us behaving as if we were all in the same room and all hoped to get together regularly to enjoy our miniatures.

I once pointed out long ago that TMP really needed to be moderated to achieve its full potential. Any deterioration of TMP, in my opinion, vindicates that idea. Though I think TMP is well beyond being able to travel that road now. But it might be given some thought if Bill knows some people he feels he can trust to manage such a thankless task.

And, without naming names, there is at least one almost certainly carefully coordinated effort to derail and actively damage TMP – and it is not a lone player doing this. And, no, I will not name but any sufficiently long and frequent visitor will be able to discern the guilty.

So, I guess my plea is for everyone to 'grow up' and show simple common courtesy to all comers – and return the predominant topic to chatting about miniatures and gaming with them. Even if you have to engage in subjects that fit that bill that bore the heck out of me – that's just me, it might fascinate you.

Is that all too much to ask?

And if you think it is too much to ask then ask yourself this, what will you do when TMP is no more and nothing replaces it?

I was not trying to pick on anyone

Me neither. For the record, I wasn't the first to mention Armand, BTW.

EDIT (sorry – I was distracted by breakfast!)

@ Bill

And, if you don't like the modern discussions, it seems 90% of your problem would be solved by simply unsubbing from Ultramodern, right?

Bill, I do like "modern discussions" which is why I am subbed to that board. But what I really like is "modern wargaming discussions" not a constant drip feed of news links.

I say again, a simple link to "The US Navy has ships" and "Russia has a new tank" is a current affairs news post and (I would argue) not a wargaming discussion and, while it might be tangentially of interest to wargamers, so might be a discussion on the weaving process for making cloth, as I use a cloth on my wargames table.

A post asking me what my politics were, was ridiculous. Any comments about that one?

John T

Early morning writer: no, it is not just you…

A post asking me what my politics were, was ridiculous. Any comments about that one?

In the past, we've allowed simple polls and surveys of mebers' politics, as long as no comments were made one way or the other.

…while it might be tangentially of interest to wargamers…

New tanks are fairly relevant, are they not???

As it turns out, everything is gaming related, because in theory, someone somewhere could play a game that may or may not take into account the future budget constraints of the Kazakhstan marine corps.

Anyone up for sharing some good vegetarian recipes? It's gaming related, since soldiers eat food.

New tanks are fairly relevant, are they not???

Bill – again you are being selective: I think you are slicing individual sentences from a larger comment by me to try to support your position.

My overall point – rather than one you are trying to extrapolate from it – is that Armand (and others – I say again this is not "Tango hate": he just happens to be quite 'prolific') posts an awful lot of simple news links with no additional added content – usually a piece of copy and pasted text with a link. So minimal or no effort on the actual wargaming front, just the link and copied text.

These news items may, or may not be interesting. I find some of them interesting, sure. But what they are not is something that adds anything to a wargaming forum. This is the point that is being made here by many users of TMP (not all, sure, but many) which you are – I would say – deliberately pretending you don't understand.

Bill, you're an intelligent chap. You can see, I'm sure, the points that are being made.

If you don't want to do anything about it, that's fine, but just say so, eh? Don't keep this going by pretending you don't understand the points being made.

And – vegetarian recepies: Exactly my point, weasel. Thank you.

John T

There are many helpful, interesting, and informative topics on TMP that relate to miniature wargaming. I think much of the irrelevant discussion is due to many members, including myself, as somehow re-interpreting the site as a sort of social network.

…many members, including myself, as somehow re-interpreting the site as a sort of social network.

Hasn't it always been a social network? How else do you explain TMP Plus?

So minimal or no effort on the actual wargaming front, just the link and copied text.

Maybe it comes down to how narrowly you define "wargaming"?

I've always considered military historical discussions, for example, to be part of wargaming.

Are you saying you want people to explicitly state, "…and this applies to wargaming because…" ?

Hasn't it always been a social network? How else do you explain TMP Plus?

And there we have it.

Bill, I shall withdraw from this conversation. You have salami sliced my points here and have done everything possible to metaphorically put your fingers in your ears to genuine concerns by members about the future of The Miniatures Page.

Fair enough. Your business, not mine: Bill's house, Bill's rules.

I get it

John T

Bill – again you are being selective: I think you are slicing individual sentences from a larger comment by me to try to support your position.

My overall point – rather than one you are trying to extrapolate from it – is that Armand (and others – I say again this is not "Tango hate": he just happens to be quite 'prolific') posts an awful lot of simple news links with no additional added content – usually a piece of copy and pasted text with a link. So minimal or no effort on the actual wargaming front, just the link and copied text.

These news items may, or may not be interesting. I find some of them interesting, sure. But what they are not is something that adds anything to a wargaming forum. This is the point that is being made here by many users of TMP (not all, sure, but many) which you are – I would say – deliberately pretending you don't understand.

Bill, you're an intelligent chap. You can see, I'm sure, the points that are being made.

If you don't want to do anything about it, that's fine, but just say so, eh? Don't keep this going by pretending you don't understand the points being made.

And – vegetarian recipes: Exactly my point, weasel. Thank you.

John T

I agree with John, and not just because we know each other in meat space for more years than I care to remember.

With regards to Armand I find his posts largely to be click bait, and rarely add anything to the wargaming debate/conversation, which is what I think John is trying to suggest. If I'm wrong in making this assumption then please tell me.

What this means I'm unlikely to click on anything from Armand unless the header indicates something of interest, and even then there's only a 50% chance it's actually interesting. IMNSHO Armand and others have raised the noise to signal ratio on this website, though I recognize that this is just my opinion.

Bottom line is that while this trend continues I will no longer pay money to support the site.

Don't read posts that don't interest you. It's simple.

Not worth the candle John.
Messrs A and T will always come up smelling of roses…
(Salut Armand! Ca va? Et le boulot, ca occupe bien?)

A simple "flag" feature where a member could tick off individual posts of interest (or non-interest) might be a solution. Of course, the first time through the user would see the extraneous posts for the day, but after a refresh, simply the ones of interest.

Self-control would work better….

IMNSHO Armand and others have raised the noise to signal ratio on this website, though I recognize that this is just my opinion.

It ain't just your opinion!

John T

Hear hear!

Well said, Mr Treadaway. This is my first TMP visit for weeks and it used to be my home page. Too much rubbish, too little gaming focus.

Bill, I shall withdraw from this conversation. You have salami sliced my points here and have done everything possible to metaphorically put your fingers in your ears to genuine concerns by members about the future of The Miniatures Page.

Fair enough. Your business, not mine: Bill's house, Bill's rules.

John, I simply don't understand your point. You complain that things are off topic, and when I dispute the point, you tell me I am salami-slicing.

Can you give me a specific proposal of what you think should be changed?

I repeat: 'Not worth the candle John.'

Just like the recent thread on the Last Word in which I commented that this will ALWAYS belong to the EdinC. Say what you will, over and over again, you will always get a come-back. Never ever wrong, always missing an essential point (your fault of course). What a character!

BTW, the Legatus is right.

Bill

I said I would withdraw from this and (unwisely) added another comment. My bad, to be frank.

Bill, I cannot believe that you don't understand what I – and many others – are saying here. You're a smart chap so please, please just have a re-read of what I've said in the last recent posts I've made on this and not-unadjacent posts.

If you think this is primarily a "social" network then I would argue* it has morphed into this over recent years and is drifting more and more in that direction.

It is becoming less focused on Miniatures (the clue should be in the name) and more focused on current affairs – typified by lots and lots (and lots) of (as Paint it Pink described it) "Click Bait": a lot of this – but by no means all – is furnished by just one poster (no names, no pack drill and – hopefully - no DH via your wrath) whom you have supported through and through with this.

It's not that don't read some of the posts he makes. It's not that I don't comment on some.

It's that it is changing the nature of this forum as many, many long term users have said.

Now if this is what you want, that's fine, but say it. That way everyone can read what you want this forum to morph into.

Nothing remains static. Nothing – on the web of all places – stays immobile or we all wind up like dinosaurs stuck in a tar pit: I get that.

But the frustration that you are eliciting amongst long term users seems to simply wash over you. You seem – and I think pretend – to not understand the OP and I'd simply ask you to read it again. All I have done is try – and try again – to restate that and, from my perspective, all you have done is seem to ignore the 'meat' of the argument.

I will say again and for the last time, in words of one syllable:

Bill, this forum is (in many users opinion) changing in a way that many don't like.

Bill, that change seems to be a move towards a less (specifically) miniatures/gaming nature, and more towards it having a current affairs, "what's moving and shaking in the world at the moment" slant added to it.

Bill, a great deal of that comes from just one poster.

Bill, despite lots of comment, that change seems unstopable.

Bill, you seem to be ignoring this in an almost deliberate fashion that many find hard to understand.

Now I don't want to annoy you sir: that is not, and never has been my intention.

And – as I don't know what else I can say to make it any clearer (as Doc McCoy said "a blind man could see it with a stick") then I have to stop commenting on this further.

Many have said I'm wasting my time on this – and they are probably right.

If you have anything more to add, can I suggest we do this via a PM? you didn't answer my last one but I expect you're a busy chap.**

John "Signing Out" Treadaway

* and have argued – as have others – at some length

** me too – I'm trying to book nearly 160 traders into Salute 2016 and it's no joke

…It is becoming less focused on Miniatures (the clue should be in the name) and more focused on current affairs…

If the problem you perceive are the "current affairs" posts, aren't 99% of those on the Ultramodern board?

Do I need to change Ultramodern from 'opt out' to 'opt in'?

Would that solve the perceived problem?

Apologies if I am not understanding you again.

Hopefully John Treadaway will resist the temptation to continue spinning wheels to get out of this morass, and await a friendly tow.

Perhaps I can use the example of a fictitious website to provide a simple illustration of what appears to be the issue.
Imagine:
Highly successful farming website that specialises in the breeding and raising of one type of animal, let's say the chicken. Perhaps "The Chicken Breeders' Page".

There are useful sub boards on the discussion of: incubating eggs, types of feed, indoors v free range, etc.

After several years of being the real go to site for info on breeding and raising chickens, it starts to change. Along comes a contributor who starts posting links to absolutely anything vaguely related to chickens:

Easter Eggs; Eggbox design; BBQ marinades for chicken; chickens of the rich and famous; how telling people the best way to boil an egg can make a food writer a household name etc. etc.

After a while those who came to the site to discuss just breeding and raising chickens will feel disillusioned with the site because of the marginal relevance of so much that appears.

So if the owner of this imaginary site said "Okay, let's rename it "The Chicken and Egg Page", and makes it a site on everything related to the name, then fine it would be clear things have changed.

If asked, some of the long-term contributors might say, this isn't what we came here for, but just get told "oh but the site's still the same" time and time again until they might give up and relocate, or break some arbitrarily applied rule and get banned; some might cling on in the hope that it would go back to what it was, and then, like JT, eventually question the change. Some might even get frustrated.

But the decision on the site's focus and aims lies with it's owner and should be clearly stated, not to be hidden behind some fig leave of variably applied and interpreted democracy.

Do I find TMP to hold as important a role in supporting my wargaming hobby as it did 10 years ago? Sadly no. Are there other places on the web that have taken up the slack? Happily yes. Do I miss the old, more focussed TMP? Yes. Have I kept checking back over the last year to see if the decline of focus I perceived that led me to look elsewhere has been halted? Yes, but sadly it seems the decline has not.

I have a lot of respect for John Treadaway and what he has said in his contributions to TMP over the years. If I had but one wish to be granted by the Editor in Chief Bill, it would be that he considers John's views with that same level of respect.

Andrew

PS: Oh and why choose the chicken analogy? A good friend raises them in the garden, and recommends "Practical Poultry" magazine in the UK as a great source of info!

I'm sorry, Andrew, but I fail to see why current military events are not as germane to Ultramodern gaming as WWII military history is to WWII gaming.

And if you personally find the discussion 'off topic', then you can easily unsub from that board, correct?

But what is your proposal for change? State it, and we can let the membership vote on your proposal.

Firstly the unsub, ignore etc solutions only work if you are logged in.

Secondly there are thousands of military related news items and reference pictures/videos being posted on the net daily. Its not whether a link can be proved that it may be relevant to wargaming, it's what comes with it.

To use the example you quote above regarding crew numbers for ships, if modern naval wargaming was an interest of mine and I had read that article on one of the many military news digests that I can subscribe to, I would include it in a posting about how I thought this might be used as a modifier for defensive response by a crew over a prolonged engagement where lack of crew might create greater errors due to fatigue.

That is the sort of value added quality that the likes of John add to an initial post. That is the wargaming/miniatures content that so many appear to think is missing from the multitude of posts that John and others have referred to above.

If you don't wish to see that distinction, then fine, that's your right as owner of TMP. I only saw and commented on this thread because I take the trouble to seek out and read John's posts. So I offer no magic proposal to make TMP what it used to be, that's for you and the active community here to decide how you want to go forward.

Good luck

Andrew

Thankyou Andrew. Nice analogy.

And just when I had begun to think I might have gone clucking mad

John "Not contributing directly to the thread but just thanking others for their support "Treadaway

Let me put it this way, if the intent of the links to news sites about current military news is to generate ideas applicable to wargaming then IMNSHO the success rate of say Armand's posts, for example, rarely rise above "glad you enjoyed it" and "keep on smiling."

My observation would be at it's incredibly difficult for Armand or myself or anyone else to generate discussion just by posting links.

IMNSHO all that happens is that people see a post, read who posted it and make up their mind that this post is just going to be a link to new item and move on.

Some will click the link, because someone always will, but (and everything after the but is the important part of what I'm saying) this does not increase the quality of the content on the site, all it does it bury the good stuff amongst more and more chaff.

I think a way forward my have just been found..tag your own thread title with….(not xxxxxxx)

I rarely post on TMP Talk, as it is generally feels like a negative space (I would rather just look at the wargame stuff and avoiding all the controversy stuff)

However ……. :-)

I mention the following only because it is a recent (today) real life example of the only problem that I have with TMP.

I have taken a very recent big interest in plastics, so today I went to the Plastics Board and decided to browse through the last few hundred posts.

It should have been a pleasant couple of hours with a coffee, but there were a lot of posts that I clicked on and then had to back out of immediately because the opening poster was a prolific poster who is on my stifle list (simply because of the noise to post levels) and so I was just getting a stifled opening post (i.e. nothing). In the end I just looked for titles that I thought were not by the poster and as a consequence no doubt missed out on a lot of valuable posts.

Those stifled posts would normally be invisible to me because I am always signed in, so they are not on my front page and my front page moves nice and slowly, so I can keep an eye on recent interesting threads, but if you click back into the boards for some research on a topic by title then you still get stifle related posts.

I suppose my two points are (1) I found the whole browsing thing today a bit frustrating to be honest and wondered whether TMP could be configured in such a way that Stifled posts simply never show at anytime and (2) my experience made me want to comment here that I feel there is a noise to 'real wargaming' issue and it is a weakness in what is otherwise a splendid site.

P.S. I know I am setting myself up for the question 'what is real wargaming'?, but I don't want to go there, I am not in a sparring mood and am hoping that enough people broadly understand my drift for it not to matter.

…this does not increase the quality of the content on the site, all it does it bury the good stuff amongst more and more chaff.

Therefore, what are you proposing?

Bill, as I said, I think TMP can – and should be – the best resource for miniatures gaming. You've asked several what is the proposal. If I'm reading others right – maybe a simple 'rule' is that, if you post to most (there exist what I call 'drivel' boards and those can stay loose – just my opinion of those boards) of the TMP boards, keep the topic relevant to the board as it relates to miniatures (figures, terrain, rules, scenarios, etc.) as opposed to "hey, look, cool, shiny." The implementation, naturally, is the real challenge. You – and rightly, I believe – try hard to keep the right of free speech open to all on TMP.

But the basic problem stems from a very small – and quite prolific – group of TMP regulars who insist on posting huge numbers of posts per day for no other apparent reason than to make lots of posts – which would be no problem if the posts had relevance to the threads they are within (or, if starting a thread, the post had 'relevance' to the topic rather than just a link to somewhere else).

And I'm not picking on one individual though one will certainly spring to mind but it isn't just that one TMPer.

There is another class of individuals, and again a very small group, that like to turn threads in to personal discussions or, more often, personal rants that go on and on and on and on and on.

So, here is a concrete proposal: Make it strongly recommended that posts on specific topic boards are RELEVANT to that topic. And keep the "oh, shiny" posts restricted to appropriate boards. Free speech is preserved and moved out of the way of those who find the posts not simply annoying but a real and greatly unappreciated barrier to the information sharing that was, and should be, the true strength of TMP. That is what attracts members and it is members that attract advertisers.

And for the other group, perhaps a rule restricting how many times one person can post in one thread to keep them from getting out of hand. This, I realize is more problematic vis-a-vis the free speech issue. But I'm willing to bet a very high percentage of TMP users would appreciate such a rule.

I think the perception seems to be (a bit vague, I grant) is that you seem to always be leaning in support of some of what the greater number of TMPers perceive as the challenge that is diluting the true value of TMP. And we don't want to lose that.

I hope that you understand what I'm saying. And I hope you will consider the intent of this thread as an attempt to right a ship that is starting to list too far towards turning turtle (at least for what is clearly a growing number of us). Lots of current and former passengers want your TMP ship to go on for a very long time.

Though I don't know Mr. Treadaway personally, I, too, have considerable respect for his participation in the hobby as a whole.

While my 'current' persona is not so old, I've been on your discussion boards since about 1996 so I think I've seen a lot, mostly good – but some greatly and deeply concerning. Relevance matters – though I'm sometimes guilty of posting posts that have no more intent than a giggle. But I do it in moderation – and moderation, too, matters.

Therefore, what are you proposing?

Well if I were the owner of the site I'd make a sub-board within each of the 16 main message boards for links to sites that Armand finds interesting, and tell him he's now in charge of generating postings on said sub-boards. The sub-boards could be called Tango's XXX news links, where XXX stands for example "Tango's General News links" in the general topic message board.

Or if that's too broad, talk to him and have a Tango board within the sub-message boards that he likes to post to.

Or if that's too much like hard work, then a Tango top level message board, making him number seventeen.

Review after three months, and if traffic is being generated the proposal has worked. Then you'd have evidence that such links are a positive benefit to the site.

You asked, I've answered.