Warfare HQ and Armchair General to join forces with new forum!

[Kampilan]

I do not agree with not counting post at FFZ.

 

[Richa333]

So far the new vBulletin seems to be working (on my account at least).

Except that there's even MORE crazy smilies, YAAAAYYY !!!!
:drink:

 

[RichardS]

My two gripes are 1) The way attachments are handled in the forums now (clickable links as opposed to inserting the images) and FFZ messages not counting. One other thing is why merge the websites than seperate them again in the forums? That being said; I can live with the first. I politely disagree with the 2nd and have no opinion on the 3rd other than pointing out the huh factor of it. :flag:

 

[Dr Zaius]

My two gripes are 1) The way attachments are handled in the forums now (clickable links as opposed to inserting the images) . . .

This is simply a matter of practicality. Very few forums allow images to be displayed like that (we used to) as it consumes massive amounts of bandwidth and slows down the entire forum for everyone. Especially in a busy thread, displaying images "in-line" means every time someone views that thread the images get loaded and re-loaded and re-loaded. . .

We have many members who complain bitterly that the forums are already too slow and sluggish (even prior to the merge). That's why we're doing what we can to keep the features we really need and do away with some of the extraneous features that simply slow everything down.

. . . and FFZ messages not counting.

Opinion noted. We do want people to understand that this is not an "open" forum like some crappy usegroup or whatever. Both ACG and WHQ have a definite purpose and Coke vs. Pepsi isn't it. Limiting the post counts for these forums is just one tiny way of gently reminding visitors that this forum is not our primary focus.

One other thing is why merge the websites than separate them again in the forums?

Planning the structure was by far the most difficult of all the tasks that was involved in the merge. On the one hand we wanted to truly combine the two sites and make it clear that there is a high degree of cooperation, but on the other hand there were some fundamental differences between the two that couldn't be overlooked without alienating a large group of users.

One of the primary differences is that WHQ remains a very specialized entity while ACG is by its very nature a generalized site. Those two interests compete directly with each other and it's not as simple as it sounds to make each group happy. The ACG guys tend to want to talk about any and everything that is even remotely related to history, while the WHQ members want to preserve the focus of the site.

Brian and I agonized over the new layout for days with each of us arguing differing points of view. In the end I think we have been to create a structure that keeps both portions "equal yet separate" without making the design counter-intuitive.

We've worked very hard over the years to build these sites into what they are and there is a concern that the "off topic" discussions have the potential to overwhelm the entire character of the forums if allowed to rein unchecked. This has been the demise of most internet-based forums in the past and it will always be something we need to keep an eye on. The bottom line is that when someone thinks of WHQ or ACG, we want them to think of wargaming and military history. We don't want this to become known as the place people go to contribute to the latest flame war or talk about your favorite BBQ recipe.

 

[RichardS]

This is simply a matter of practicality. Very few forums allow images to be displayed like that (we used to) as it consumes massive amounts of bandwidth and slows down the entire forum for everyone. Especially in a busy thread, displaying images "in-line" means every time someone views that thread the images get loaded and re-loaded and re-loaded. . .

We have many members who complain bitterly that the forums are already too slow and sluggish (even prior to the merge). That's why we're doing what we can to keep the features we really need and do away with some of the extraneous features that simply slow everything down.

I understand completely. Like I said I was okay with it. We just have to be sure to describe properly the image so no surprises are received.

Opinion noted. We do want people to understand that this is not an "open" forum like some crappy usegroup or whatever. Both ACG and WHQ have a definite purpose and Coke vs. Pepsi isn't it. Limiting the post counts for these forums is just one tiny way of gently reminding visitors that this forum is not our primary focus.

Well, I made my point and I still disagree to a point. While I agree that Coke vs. Pepsi is not really a topic worthy of counting; political discussions not appropriate elsewhere is. Should they be uncounted just cause they are in the FFZ? That being said; I'm not going to kick over the traces for this. And I'd be daft to deny that both WHQ and ACG have seperate purposes.

Planning the structure was by far the most difficult of all the tasks that was involved in the merge. On the one hand we wanted to truly combine the two sites and make it clear that there is a high degree of cooperation, but on the other hand there were some fundamental differences between the two that couldn't be overlooked without alienating a large group of users.

One of the primary differences is that WHQ remains a very specialized entity while ACG is by its very nature a generalized site. Those two interests compete directly with each other and it's not as simple as it sounds to make each group happy. The ACG guys tend to want to talk about any and everything that is even remotely related to history, while the WHQ members want to preserve the focus of the site.

Brian and I agonized over the new layout for days with each of us arguing differing points of view. In the end I think we have been to create a structure that keeps both portions "equal yet separate" without making the design counter-intuitive.

We've worked very hard over the years to build these sites into what they are and there is a concern that the "off topic" discussions have the potential to overwhelm the entire character of the forums if allowed to rein unchecked. This has been the demise of most internet-based forums in the past and it will always be something we need to keep an eye on. The bottom line is that when someone thinks of WHQ or ACG, we want them to think of wargaming and military history. We don't want this to become known as the place people go to contribute to the latest flame war or talk about your favorite BBQ recipe.

First off: Thank you and Brian a lot for providing us these forums. I agree that you both did a masterful job. I think I, and perhaps only I, was expecting to see a more linear forum, but I agree with you this is the best way to go. A person can easily access either WHQ and ACG or not as they desire. The Staffs of ACG and WHQ did a wonderful job. And with the quality of people I have seen on both sides; I think that off-topic posts will be minimal. :toast: Here is to you and Brian! :toast: :flag:

 

[Admiral]

Eh henh henh henh!

"We don't want this to become known as the place people go to contribute to the latest flame war or talk about your favorite BBQ recipe." Don Maddox

I take it then that a discussion of Joan of Ark is out of the question?

Erm... sorry, but you opened yourself up for that one. Relax, Don. I promise. We'll take good care of ya.

I agree with you. A post such as this merits no credit... but it needed to be said. You have told us how it is, & thats how it'll be. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Or Leave it.

 

[Jim H. Moreno]

Outstanding, awesome, and a site to behold! Don & Brian, my hat's off to you gentlemen (and all else who helped) for a damn fine piece of webwork. I love the new look, getting used to the feel quickly, and the information we now have on military history and wargaming is beyond compare.

Three cheers, standing ovation, huzzah, and a loud & thunderous AIRBORNE!

I'll also send you the best from my vast Alyssa Milano pic collection, if you like...

:smoke:

 

[Goblin]

Hullo to all the ACG guys! This is pretty cool so far. Great job guys.

Goblin

 

[Eric Weider]

Brian/Don:
A superb job in pulling off this complex merger. Paying attention to the details and honoring each forum as equal is what made this so effective. Hoorah!

 

[tigersqn]

Gotta admit. You guys did a great job. :clap:

After those 24 hours offline, the DT's are now starting to subside.

 

[Doctor Sinister]

Coke vs. Pepsi isn't it

Oops. That one was me...

Dr. S.

 

[Lance Williams]

Oops. That one was me...

Dr. S.

At least you learned about moonpies.........

 

[Richa333]

Suggestion

Looks like, whenever the Moderator/Adminstrators get 'round to it, there's a good deal of merging that could occur between ACG's "Modern Conflicts" and WHQ's "Combat University."

 

[Tiberius]

Looks like, whenever the Moderator/Adminstrators get 'round to it, there's a good deal of merging that could occur between ACG's "Modern Conflicts" and WHQ's "Combat University."

I'll continue to use any platform I can get to encourage a slight restructuring of the place. The post I am quoting is another mention of the scattered nature of the discussion of 'current events'. Right now to get the (2) club's input on current happenings now first I go to ACGC Club -> Military History -> modern conflicts, then check out the Korea forum there. Then pop over to WarfareHQ Club -> COmbat U. Finally, oh by the way, current events -> politics. Could the modern conflicts and current events be put in the same subtree somehow?
Most of what is discussed in modern conflict is really not military history: it is current events.

 

[Martin Schenkel]

Most of what is discussed in modern conflict is really not military history: it is current events.

I also agree that some consolidation is needed, but current events don't necessarily involve conflict. The US presidential elections and the situation in Iraq are both current events, but the latter is a military conflict.

 

[laszlo.nemedi]

Getting the feeling that current politics issues (candidates, parties, Iraq political parts...) only divide and annoying people, while the military discussions, the history, and the wargame, personal chats are very interesting.
I think to share knowledge is good, knowing each other personal feelings is good, but debate on Bush and Kerry, etc. just boring as so easy to find out who is/will be on which side.

I would prefer to leave out politics completly. First it will be a shock and need strong moderating, but worth it.

just my 2 cents (filler in Hungary)

 

[Tiberius]

I also agree that some consolidation is needed, but current events don't necessarily involve conflict. The US presidential elections and the situation in Iraq are both current events, but the latter is a military conflict.

Yes, so I'm not suggesting to lump them in together completely, just to divide out a category that covers current affairs. My current (ha, ha) idea is to have a category that's called "current events, politics and opinion" (possibly) and it's forums would be MAIN: current events SUBS: 1. current conflicts, 2. politics, 3. opinion and 4. free fire zone, and, oh yeah, 5. jokes and humor. The idea would be that the main and first 3 subforums would be for serious discussions. Flames and truly ignorant or frivolous stufff would be relegated to FFZ. There would probably be some cross seeding still between modern conflict, combat university and current conflict but the idea would be that the first would be taking a historical perspective, the second a tactical one and the third a current events perspective.

 

[Tiberius]

Getting the feeling that current politics issues (candidates, parties, Iraq political parts...) only divide and annoying people, while the military discussions, the history, and the wargame, personal chats are very interesting.
I think to share knowledge is good, knowing each other personal feelings is good, but debate on Bush and Kerry, etc. just boring as so easy to find out who is/will be on which side.

I would prefer to leave out politics completly. First it will be a shock and need strong moderating, but worth it.

just my 2 cents (filler in Hungary)

I'm hoping to keep political and especially current events discussions in ( I learn a lot from them ) Hopefully keeping everything in it's "cage" -see my previous post, could help to avoid divisiveness etc.

 

[laszlo.nemedi]

Yes, so I'm not suggesting to lump them in together completely, just to divide out a category that covers current affairs. My current (ha, ha) idea is to have a category that's called "current events, politics and opinion" (possibly) and it's forums would be MAIN: current events SUBS: 1. current conflicts, 2. politics, 3. opinion and 4. free fire zone, and, oh yeah, 5. jokes and humor. The idea would be that the main and first 3 subforums would be for serious discussions. Flames and truly ignorant or frivolous stufff would be relegated to FFZ. There would probably be some cross seeding still between modern conflict, combat university and current conflict but the idea would be that the first would be taking a historical perspective, the second a tactical one and the third a current events perspective.

Maybe you are right, but not convinced.
I think politics in this time (e.g. Iraq, and election time) only makes me sad.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Maybe you are right, but not convinced.
I think politics in this time (e.g. Iraq, and election time) only makes me sad.

I agree Laszlo. The flaming and swear words have gotten worse. And it seems to be neverending and self-generating. Maybe there is a need for some make-over, maybe that could help improve things. Harsh words from moderators will only pour oil on the water for a short while...

I liked the 'old' current events better, with silly stuff like BBQ recipes, or Pepsi vs Coke. Very friendly all, with some very SHORT wars. Was that such a bad regime?