"Would you support a new board?" Topic

Yes.

Yes. At least if it is a serious request ;-)). If someone would like to expand the number of boards with his (or her) personal interest I will vote in favor, whether or not the subject interests me.

I say "Yes, so I can strike it from the Home Page." But I always vote "No, I would not support this board."

Everything I like has a board already though I wonder if Frostgrave isn't getting sufficient impetus to warrant a board of it's own.

Ok I say it
More boards, lovely

Soon, along will come the usual suspects that demand one be eliminated, like it's some zero sum game.

I always vote for those that interest me and ignore those that do not. A "No" vote doesn't count for anything, so why bother?
The only votes that count are "I would support it" and that is purely to gauge support.
New board polls are not democratic.

Will it be a "Bored" board, or a board on the various types of wooden boards available for sale, and the discussion of the intrinsic qualities of each?

We don't have either of those.

Almost always NO. We have far too many as it is.

There should be a "Fill in the Blank" Board so everyone who requests a board just posts it there. Just have the board title changible by the one posting it. After that it changes per use.

Always "Yes" because board proliferation has become so ludicrous I must find some enjoyment in it.

Mostly NO

I almost always vote yes. I like the narrow focus on a particular subject.

Generally opposed to new boards. Like it matters.

Soon there will be one for irregular raiders of the War of Jenkin's Ear.

I'm not opposed to new boards. I find the board organisation very helpful when I want to scroll through the older archives of messages on any given topic and frequent boards for periods that I'm currently actively gaming and/or planning for.

None of the board-haters have ever explained how the existence of boards changes their experience of only browsing the front page and ignoring specific boards.

I vote Yes on any periods that I'm at all likely to contribute to, and No Opinion on boards that I don't imagine I would ever actively contribute to.

I usually vote yes. If having a separate board for something would improve someone else's experience on TMP, it's no skin off my nose.

Is the new board for French and Indian Wars?
Then of course I want a new one.

A Tibetan Wargamers' Board? Not so much.

Only if they serve free beer.

if a new board interests me, I will support it.
otherwise… no

Mostly no. What is the point? once posts drop off the front page they are dead anyway.

The guide I use is do I expect to make one non-trivial post a week in such a forum. If I expect to provide that level of support, I will tell others that I would support the board (vote yes). If not, I will say I would not (vote no).

It is my policy to always vote no.

It is my policy to always vote no.

Because the more boards you have the more water-downed TMP becomes. All these boards for specific rules takes away from the period boards.

For example if I post a question or comment on WWII Land Discussion board then the members who are only posting on the Command Decision or Bolt Action board will miss it. There are a lot of boards you have to remember to cross post to.

There are plenty of other forums and Yahoo Groups which already support those rules. So why clog up TMP with a bunch of redundant boards.

Rules specific boards and forums and Yahoo Groups for that matter, are difficult to discuss the rules objectively because the people on there are already committed to the rules. If you criticize their favorite rules, then they are going to slam you down.

Its hard to support a F&I War board when there isn't a WWI board. What we have now doesn't really count. How many boards have been removed because of lack of support? Not many.

I would be more likely to support an FPW board as oppose to a an "1870" rules board. Because there is an excellent Yahoo Group for those rules and there is not enough support for a FPW board on TMP. Other than that it just pleases me to vote no. My no vote has had zero impact on the subject.

Why do you care? I never win anyway.

I do not belong to many Yahoo groups , mainly because they tend to flood my email and because Yahoo seems determined to drive people away with inane changes.

I support TMP board proliferation mainly because it is my experience that when something had it's own board , the number of threads on that topic increases.
If people miss threads because they have that board turned off , that is not my problem. It's theirs. I have 99% of all boards turned on.

On Yahoo you can set it to where you do not receive emails. They nearly drove me away when new management took over and tried some ridiculous changes, but that has finally worked itself out.

My experience has been just the opposite. For example:

TMP link

That board was proposed by Connard Sage, back in the days when he was inside the tent. It was to show his contempt for "more boards, lovely".
It had a much lower implementation threshold back then.

But it still doesn't answer the question of how such an underused board harms you in any way. Or why anyone would want to get rid of it.

I believe we had a very under utilized board on painting Napoleonic ships. It was purged, and I haven't a clue why. It's not my bag, but there was a decent amount of information for those who were interested. Now it's gone.
I often think that the urge to limit, or delete boards is based solely on "Not my interests, do away with it."

Approach it like conservatives approach the budget: You can have a new board when you remove an old one.