"Regarding a certain book..." Topic

Where did the post discussing book go?

Was some useful points in there by Brechtel and others.

It violated policy concerning commercial announcements on the forum, as it concerned a book about to be published.

It is not fair to the publishers that choose to advertise here, to allow other companies to benefit from free promotion.

And in particular, Osprey joined TooFatLardies in boycotting TMP, and their rep has publicly made disparaging comments about TMP, so it's inappropriate for Osprey to benefit from publicity here when they are literally trying to put us out of business.

Good point Bill. Hold fast.

martin

But there's been at least 2 separate threads about that particular book on the Message Boards for months – bit late to worry about free publicity?

I agree with ConnaughtRanger.

I've seen a couple people speeding around here who weren't pulled over, so they shouldn't give me a ticket for doing the same. I also understand there are a few murderers who haven't been brought to justice yet … hmmmmmmmmm

Ain't life wonderful!?

I can understand Bill's position and his right to remove the original post.
However, since the discussion about this particular book has previously been visible for quite a while, to remove it now is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

And as the book has now been published, we are surely free now to discuss its merits, and the role of camp followers in general?

And as the book has now been published, we are surely free now to discuss its merits, and the role of camp followers in general?

If Osprey gets their way, and TMP goes out of business, no books of any kind will be discussed here, and our staff editors will not have jobs.

So I would rather that Osprey's latest releases get zero publicity here.

And the original mention in a post dated December 2020 and subsequent discussion can still be accessed!

This policy of not being allowed to discuss certain publishers and manufacturers seems designed to reduce the numbers of TMP readers and visitors. I imagine most wargamers would prefer to read about everything in the hobby, and not just Warlord products. (I use Warlord as an example, since currently they have about half the slots in the News section. I am aware that a select subset of the hobby are also allowed to be discussed).

This policy to limit the usefulness of TMP seems somewhat self destructive; the proverbial "cutting off your nose to spite your face". And if employment is a worry, then why let emotions rule a business decision, especially one that hurts TMP more?

Perhaps there should be a list of businesses that TMP has cancelled or boycotted or blacklisted, so that posters might not run afoul of such transgressions?

Sorry I started the original thread. Actually, no I'm not sorry. Osprey has a horrible way of promoting an upcoming set of rules in an already crowded market. Shhh. Don't ask questions about our books. Just buy them because we are Osprey! What nonsense. They need to generate buzz. Maybe they need to hire my oldest son, who has degrees in marketing and does it professionally.

Osprey's latest releases get zero publicity here.

You are no doubt aware of the large image of Osprey's upcoming release Stargrave that is displayed right now in the News item from Caliber books? As they are an advertiser, one imagines they can therefore post what they wish, since they help support TMP financially.

So can that principal be extended to supporting members, who also give you money? That supporting members might therefore be allowed to discuss any items in the wargaming world that interest them?

Tony, interesting point. It may well be worth consideration, perhaps as an add on forum to the Blue Fez.

I must admit I do find the "no discussion" rule regrading non-advertisers to be a bit odd, and something that doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. One sees plenty of reviews, discussions etc. of rules, books, models etc. on other sites that come from producers who don't advertise on those sites, and similarly elsewhere in the media (I'm not sure if Airfix Magazine is still going but I was often seeing reviews in the Airfix house publication for models produced by their business rivals who certainly didn't advertise with them). To me, banning discussion would seem to limit "footfall" here, and would have the added disbenefit of limiting exposure that advertisers do have. But c'est la vie I guess.

I think a lot depends on the actions taken by the banned folks. If you declare war on TMP, then you should not expect TMP to be a platform for adding to your sales.

Oh I agree, if you go out of your way to annoy a media outlet then don't be surprised if that media outlet decides they aren't going to run anything good about you. But there are many that don't fit into that category.

This policy of not being allowed to discuss certain publishers and manufacturers seems designed to reduce the numbers of TMP readers and visitors.

Must be counter-intuitive, then, as our numbers are breaking records lately and upsetting our critics.

You are no doubt aware of the large image of Osprey's upcoming release Stargrave that is displayed right now in the News item from Caliber books?

Caliver Books is, of course, a TMP advertiser.

…One sees plenty of reviews, discussions etc. of rules, books, models etc. on other sites…

And we allow that here. The prohibition is on announcement of new commercial products only.

So can that principal be extended to supporting members, who also give you money? That supporting members might therefore be allowed to discuss any items in the wargaming world that interest them?

At the end of the day, the important thing is that our staff editors have food on the table and can pay their bills. Keep them in your hearts and minds, please.

I'm a tad confused. It's now published and I've bought a copy. Can I comment on it? Presumably not, because I did and it's been deleted with all the rest.

You can review it.

In that case….. It's pretty good. Scholarly rather than salacious and really well illustrated with some excellent contemporary prints – puts Cardoza to shame. Christa Hook's drawings are – as expected – very good and might give a few ideas to figure sculptors rather than the typical "uniformed" female on offer from most companies today. Many on this forum won't touch it with the proverbial but I'd recommend it to the general enthusiast.

Hello All,
I am sorry discussion on my book was censored. I am not an Osprey employee, so don't know anything about wider issues. Much of what was written in advance of publication was actually quite disparaging, and I am a little confused why the thread begun last year was allowed to stand right up to the moment the book was actually published? Why was it not censored before, when people were 'incredulous' Osprey were publishing a book about women in Napoleon's Army? I am not losing sleep over this, but it does not appear to be an even-handed approach.
Based on the early feedback and reviews, the book has been brilliantly received by the Napoleonic community, so would welcome any reviews and further debate that it provokes. Thanks for the right to reply. Terry

I am sorry discussion on my book was censored.

Perhaps your emotions should be redirected against the company that is trying to put us out of business?

I'm baffled. I was unaware of the book in question until it was posted on TMP. That suggests TMP creates customers for publishers. I would have thought that was a good thing all round.

I do hope people will continue to offer their reviews on new titles. They are always helpful in making a decision on the next book to buy.

Emotions?
Ok, I see there are politics at work here I am not aware of. Good luck with your website.
Terry

Bill how do you know that Osprey is trying to put TMP out of business? Please say more.

Reviews of new books and/or recommendations for the best reading material on a new project, or new rules for a period, from the membership has always been one of the most useful features of TMP for me.

It would be a pity if this was somehow limited because some publishers were ‘black listed'

"Based on the early feedback and reviews, the book has been brilliantly received by the Napoleonic community….". Excellent news – well done, Mr Crowdy.

Sounds an interesting book. I like reading peripheral topics from time to time.
How on earth did TMP attract the ire of Osprey? That sounds crazy! Shame if it's true, Ospreys are the staple of many wargamers.

Just weird!
In business, emotions don't count, or shouldn't be…
Whatever harm a third party had done needn't be continually acknowledged- just get on with life and deny the opportunists their victory. Somewhat churlish and delayed reaction.

>>It is not fair to the publishers that choose to advertise here, to allow other companies to benefit from free promotion.

Yet you harm them by denying the existence of a product they may sell. Isn't that inconsistent? [Rhetorical].

Anyway, though I was sceptical of the book the reviews appeared and TC's thorough and lucid research and thoughts (rather than the published pious dribbling fanaticism of certain authors and adherents) shows an interesting side of the period.

[Disclaimer- I already own many books on the women of the period both for and against N. as I researched the 'social' and political aspect of his life, not just the military.]

When the dust settles and other purchases are out of the way, I'll buy one and pass it on to S.O. for reading too!
regards
d ‌‌

This smacks of "1984" when any publication and response to it suddenly ceases to exist. This had developed into a useful thread. If I contributed anything to it, it was purely to say that I thought this was a spoof posting about a book title that surely could not be true. We learnt much about the definition of "Camp Followers" and I got replies suggesting that I might be too hasty in dismissing this as nonsense. I thought this had passed my definition of the "added content test" and was far more than a simple advert (yet I do accept that may have been how it started).

My real complaint is that it is a bit sinister to remove it so late in the day, when there has been such a response. The real 1984 thing is that we are never told it has been removed. It just disappears. Tell us this breaks rules and has been removed. It is the same story again, failing to communicate what may yet well be a perfectly reasonable decision. Communicate.

Hmm, I'm sorry to see this, makes this site considerably less attractive :(

It's not just the link to a book that was deleted, but all the work others put in reviewing it, and discussing the general subject matter. I'm particularly annoyed at losing the links and points made by Brechtel. Reviews are stated to be ok, but then apparently not as those posts were all arbitrarily deleted.

It makes me hesitate to post much on any product in case it is regarded at some future date as an "announcement" and subsequently deleted with ad hoc vandalism like this. Unfortunately, it looks like I will have to save more detailed posting for the Napoleonic Wargamer Facebook group. Given it has 10K members, I'm guessing it might be the new hub for such discussions.

To repeat my brief and deleted review – Napoleon's Women Camp Followers, bought PDF version and found it a useful and interesting contribution and will be adding a few more Cantinieres to my French forces in consequence (and will leave more detailed review for the facebook Napoleonic group).

Bill how do you know that Osprey is trying to put TMP out of business? Please say more.

When TooFatLardies announced they were organizing an advertisers boycott of TMP, the Osprey rep was active on social media endorsing the effort.

How on earth did TMP attract the ire of Osprey? That sounds crazy!

I've never understood what TooFatLardies or Osprey were boycotting TMP over. Because we banned some trolls that were TooFatLardies fans? Because of 'negativity' (which seems to mean TFL was offended because someone here said something negative about one of their rulesets)?

It would be a pity if this was somehow limited because some publishers were ‘black listed'

Are you blind? They're trying to kill us, and you want us to give them publicity?

Hmm, I'm sorry to see this, makes this site considerably less attractive :(

Yeah, well, TMP will be even less attractive if it's DEAD.

Well this seems like just another way to kill the site. Annoying the audience by saying reviews are ok and then deleting them.
If there is a long list of reviews and discussion by other people, surely it would be possible to just delete reference and links to the book in the first post (as you did with mine here), rather than removing everyones detailed discussion long after the fact of the first post. I mean are reviews ok or are they not? What counts as a review, where is that stated if it is?

And if you have repeat offenders doing posts you label "announcements", warn, explain, hold their posts for review before they are allowed up, or just ban them?

And just with a quick look, these recent posts also seem to be announcements on this same board and still up? Who knows how it all works.
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

Well this seems like just another way to kill the site.

Why so negative? TMP is rocking!

Who knows how it all works.

From 2018??? Different policy back then.

Editor Gwen knows, that's what's important.

I repeat – why delete all the review and discussion posts by people long after the fact. Why not just snip out the problematic detail if that is the issue?

And why not state clearly what your policy is somewhere so there is not this clumsy mess of "Editor Gwen" knows and not other people.

I repeat – why delete all the review and discussion posts by people long after the fact. Why not just snip out the problematic detail if that is the issue?

Because we're not inclined to do any favors for a corporation that's out to KILL TMP. How hard is that for you to understand? Sorry if our struggle for survival inconveniences you.

And why not state clearly what your policy is somewhere so there is not this clumsy mess of "Editor Gwen" knows and not other people.

I think you have no sense of humor. The policy has been explained repeatedly on this board and in the FAQ.

Ok so you are now saying you WILL delete reviews about certain products, and too bad, and we are somehow expected to know about in advance which companies that is. Great…

This is what your FAQ says, not that you seem to obey it for certain companies so it isn't really worth reading anyway!

*Can I announce my new wargaming product on the forum?
No – please see the News of the Hobby FAQ section.
*I'm a fan. Can I promote a new release from my favorite hobby company?
Please don't. If we allow that, it incentivizes non-advertisers to get their fans to post on our forum and get unpaid advertising. Of course, you can still post a review or a game report.

You might want to add a list of companies you are currently blacklisting so people at least know you might wreck any topic that mentions them – Osprey, Too Fat Lardies – who else??
As Liam says above, communicate.

Ok so you are now saying you WILL delete reviews about certain products, and too bad, and we are somehow expected to know about in advance which companies that is. Great…

If I understand your complaint, you posted a review on someone else's topic announcing a new book, and you are aggrieved because the topic was removed for violating forum rules.

Is that correct?

"KILL"?

Ok let's break this down. No the complaint is not that, and nor is it just from me if you see the comments above.

It is that an entire thread of useful discussions and reviews was deleted arbitrarily after months, with no indication in the ambiguous rules that this may happen.
It is that rules are in any case hidden within a mass of material and posts on this site and hard to find.
It is that, even if the rules were stated clearly, and prominently, the application in this instance would be unnecessarily heavy handed and not serve your main purpose well (which is to punish/prevent freeriders, while still supporting the community and being respectful of community members).

I get it, you want to make sure your site gets advertising revenue, and not have advertisers freeloading with announcement posts. So what can be done to improve your policy and its application, for the benefit of your readers, advertisers and (not least) you and your workers? I would suggest the following:

1. Firstly, communicate clearly and remove the ambiguity: What is "new"? Released this month, within 2, 6, 12 months? At what point are people free to post about something because it is not "new"? This book has been out for a while now, I saw the first announcements months ago, so how are we to know if that is ok or not? Pick a figure (e.g. published within 12 months). Secondly what counts as a "review"? Look at Amazon – "Great. 4/5" is a review, "Terrible" is a review. Is that permissible here? If so it is easily gameable. State more clearly what counts as a review if those examples are not ok (e.g. even 100-300 words of genuine reflection may be enough disincentive to put off cheap announcement spammers). See here for examples of word count and pick something:
link

2. Consider this, and decide on the clear wording of your policy, and make the main points of this prominently displayed, not buried in a voluminous FAQ , nor even more obscure and I imagine often repeated discussion posts like this. This will help people be aware of and accept it. (See 4 below).
Other websites have no hesitation or apology in displaying business critical messaging like this and nor should you.

3. With regard to application of rules, be reasonable rather than draconian, implement it meaningfully rather than arbitrarily. If you find someone has made an announcement post soon after the fact with no substantive content after that, then by all means delete it. But, if you get to the issue late after the fact (months in this case, and remembering such posts can also happen if someone is mistaken about how new a product is, misses the rule etc), AND there is an entire detailed discussion with numerous posts by members which qualify as genuine reviews and discussion, then accept your part in the mea culpa and just delete the initial announcement post with the snip function.
This removes the easy promotion and click through to the product aspect (which most people will have seen by this time anyway), and avoids aggrieving members of the community who are not doing anything wrong according to the spirit and design intent of the rules (no free advertising, but substantive reviews and reports are ok).

4. Add a brief and clear message to the top left panel so anyone using the message boards can actually see this policy and its purpose clearly, thus increasing awareness and buyin to the concept:

ON the Message boards:

Message Boards is where TMP members can communicate with one another.

Please note new product announcement posts are not allowed on these boards, as they disincentivise the advertising upon which TMP depends for survival. New products are those published within the last year, and details of these and prior releases can be found in the "Hobby News" section. Substantive genuine reviews of all products (at least 200 words) and game reports are still fine to post.

There are currently 279 message boards, and 5,333,474 total messages.

AND on each post:

"Regarding a certain book…" Topic
42 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please note new product announcement posts are not allowed on these boards, as they disincentivise the advertising upon which TMP depends for survival. New products are those published within the last year, and details of these and prior releases can be found in the "Hobby News" section. Substantive genuine reviews of all products (at least 200 words) and game reports are still fine to post.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

(And make the "Hobby News" in the above notice a link, so potential advertisers can quickly click through and see the advantages of committing to advertising).

If you make these tweaks in policy and application, I think it should result in considerably less work for your team having to go over the same old ground (issues arising from lack of clear communication), and generate considerably greater goodwill from both readers and advertisers.
And incidentally I am a registered psychologist and manager paid to review and write policy and account for human interaction factors in situations far more complicated than this, in organisations with millions of turnover and liability. So this is also not just cheap uninformed opinion (or at least not entirely!), and I do want your site to flourish.

Thanks for your input.

If I understand your complaint, you posted a review on someone else's topic announcing a new book, and you are aggrieved because the topic was removed for violating forum rules.

Is that correct?

…seems pretty equivalent to…

It is that an entire thread of useful discussions and reviews was deleted arbitrarily after months, with no indication in the ambiguous rules that this may happen.

I, too, have extensive management experience in large corporate organizations (for what that's worth). Plus decades of success in social media. So perhaps my opinion is not "cheap" or "uninformed" either.

Please note I did not say or in any way mean to imply your opinion is cheap or uniformed , I was just offering a disclaimer about my own! Obviously if you are running this site you are not that and it would be a ridiculous accusation that I would not make.That you engage to the extent you do here and elsewhere, also shows you are consider matters carefully and have respect for others.

However, I do fear, that if you see those two situations as equivalent you are missing important detail and nuance, or dismissing it as unimportant. As I explained the rules are unclear, hard to find, and sometimes arbitrarily and unhelpfully applied. I believe a few simple changes could significantly improve this, as I outlined above.

Clearly, the editor has the power to settle disputes, to help keep discussions and exchanges civilised, to suspend participants, etc, and so, to a certain extent, acts as an umpire or referee.
May I respectfully observe, Bill, that in order to maintain the confidence of those taking part, one expects an umpire or referee to be entirely impartial, yet some of your posts here don't entirely give that impression.

As I explained the rules are unclear, hard to find, and sometimes arbitrarily and unhelpfully applied. I believe a few simple changes could significantly improve this, as I outlined above.

I think we have different management philosophies.

I prefer to keep the rules simple, and count on good common sense of our members, rather than to create comprehensive rules that would be complicated and be, as you say, even harder to find because they would be much longer.

Add a brief and clear message to the top left panel…

I think this begs the question, why this rule, and not any other forum rule?

Now, we could add something in that spot, that would remind members of a forum rule, and have it randomly select a different rule. Though it might seem a bit like 1984.

one expects an umpire or referee to be entirely impartial, yet some of your posts here don't entirely give that impression.

It would seem silly to pretend I don't have an opinion.

Oh dear Bill… Yes simple rules would be good, e.g. some simple guidance on what counts as new, and what counts as a review. Currently we don't have that, instead it is a muddle leading to repeated frustration and confusion.

And it also seems nonsensical to say you prefer simple rules when you have a multitudinous encyclopedia of rules explaining how to "be polite" – they are the indeed the most complicated exposition on this subject I've ever seen on a wargaming forum, or indeed any forum. To quote about 5% of them:

*Can I call him a perv?
Not here.
*Can I tell someone to off?
Please, no.
*OK, can I tell someone to ?
Never.
*Can I call someone one of those silly slang names they use in other countries?
A term that may sound "silly" to you, could be quite offensive to someone in the country or culture from which the term originates. So, don't go there unless you're certain the term is OK in general conversation.
*Can I use street slang or street talk?
When it isn't vulgar, yes. However, you run the risk that others – especially people from other cultures – may not understand you.
*Can I call someone an arseclown?
Yes – nobody will take that seriously…

And on and on it goes. Over 2000 words in the rules of conduct section alone, and yet 3-4 more words guidance on what "new" and "review" entails is too much? Come on!

As your own words above demonstrate and even explicitly acknowledge, – common sense is vastly over-rated because it relies on common understanding. Given you have found it necessary to lay this out in detail for "be polite", to then refuse to add a couple of words to describe what "new" and a "review" seems ridiculous.

As to why a message in the top left panel about announcements and not something else, I acknowledge that is a fairer point. But I will say that most of your other rules are only describing common internet etiquette like be polite (in exhaustive detail). Whereas this rule ("no new product announcements") is a counterintuitive and unique to this forum because it is the complete opposite of behaviour endorsed on other wargaming forums. Thus it needs extra attention.

Message added to top left panel in forums.