Please can I request a reorganisation of topics which are part of the 'Equipment' Sections
- Past
- Current
- Future
This will make it much easier to browse.
Thanks
Reorganisation please
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 12:17
Re: Reorganisation please
Future would keep posts related to project not yet part of the inventory separate i.e. P8A
Re: Reorganisation please
Having created one-third of all the threads in this UKDF forum (yes, I checked), I really do object to those of you (old and new) who treat these threads as your personal soapbox to dream up, fantasise and speculate imaginary solutions and go wildly and randomly off-topic. And also using these threads to insult/troll other members really isn't the place to do it either.
The recent surge of "refugees" from other former forums unfamiliar with the UKDF, has really changed the character and tone of the UKDF recently and has already annoyed one major contributor so much that he's sadly now given up and gone into "lurker" mode.
Members old and new, if you really want to discuss, please do it in the General Discussion section. That's why it was created back in May 2015.
The Equipment section is and was originally intended to be a section for sharing actual news and reference information about past, current and future equipment. The Queen Elizabeth Class thread is the exception, as it has always been both for news and discussion about the QE class ships ever since it originally began back in the mp.net days, and now here.
Ok?
The recent surge of "refugees" from other former forums unfamiliar with the UKDF, has really changed the character and tone of the UKDF recently and has already annoyed one major contributor so much that he's sadly now given up and gone into "lurker" mode.
Members old and new, if you really want to discuss, please do it in the General Discussion section. That's why it was created back in May 2015.
The Equipment section is and was originally intended to be a section for sharing actual news and reference information about past, current and future equipment. The Queen Elizabeth Class thread is the exception, as it has always been both for news and discussion about the QE class ships ever since it originally began back in the mp.net days, and now here.
Ok?
Re: Reorganisation please
Aren't you a special snowflake!SKB wrote:Having created one-third of all the threads in this UKDF forum (yes, I checked), I really do object to those of you (old and new) who treat these threads as your personal soapbox to dream up, fantasise and speculate imaginary solutions and go wildly and randomly off-topic. And also using these threads to insult/troll other members really isn't the place to do it either.
The recent surge of "refugees" from other former forums unfamiliar with the UKDF, has really changed the character and tone of the UKDF recently and has already annoyed one major contributor so much that he's sadly now given up and gone into "lurker" mode.
Members old and new, if you really want to discuss, please do it in the General Discussion section. That's why it was created back in May 2015.
The Equipment section is and was originally intended to be a section for sharing actual news and reference information about past, current and future equipment. The Queen Elizabeth Class thread is the exception, as it has always been both for news and discussion about the QE class ships ever since it originally began back in the mp.net days, and now here.
Ok?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Reorganisation please
It really makes my head hurt that all discussion is shoe laced into "equipment" threads.
Will take a couple of more paracetamols and consider whether trying to contribute (in any other way... reading the "news" is always nice, no doubt about that!) is a worthwhile hobby.
RIP Think Defence (the operative word was "think"... not quote from some other source; again a very valuable activity in itself, and I try to spot and redistribute news, too, when it is not self evident that they might make it to the wider press).
Will take a couple of more paracetamols and consider whether trying to contribute (in any other way... reading the "news" is always nice, no doubt about that!) is a worthwhile hobby.
RIP Think Defence (the operative word was "think"... not quote from some other source; again a very valuable activity in itself, and I try to spot and redistribute news, too, when it is not self evident that they might make it to the wider press).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Reorganisation please
Some people here are obsessed with moderating even though they aren't moderators and boosting their post count.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Reorganisation please
I think people would be best to consider the big picture here. So please, read this before continuing.
It has become clear to the staff that there are two methods of thinking amongst people who come to this forum. I'll divide them into two types for clarity.
Type 1 - Those who prefer quick, snappy threads that they can catch up, be informed of developments they didn't know about, share a couple comments, a few questions or ideas and see what everyone else is thinking.
Type 2 - Those who want in depth, fairly persistent and ongoing discussion that can mould, change and speculate/debate/conceptualise wildly and freely.
Type 1 and Type 2 both form significant portions of the forum's population. Here we can see Type 2 making it clear that they don't like how Type 1 works because they find it restrictive, but we've also had numerous PM's and mentions from people in Type 1 who are not a fan of how threads become crowded due to Type 2 and operate at a speed far too much for them to feel they want to read it all from.
That is why, as a team, we created areas for both these types of discussion. News threads for people who want snappier approaches, and General threads for unlimited, "whatever you want" discussion. People can now choose how they want to view the forum, and use or ignore whatever threads they want to.
However, I must speak to both sides here and say that the passive aggressive and insulting implications need to stop. We're not going to tolerate people targeting others with barbed comments, just as much as we frown upon talking down on others. If you feel someone is, then report it and move on.
UKDF is made up of people who've come from various types of places. MP.net functioned very stringently off of the "news only" type threads and discussion threads kept separate. Many people enjoy that. Conversely, Think Defence encouraged freeform discussion. Many people enjoy that.
Please accept that both manners of using this forum exist.
If you ever feel like you don't have somewhere to do something you want to do, just ask us. If demand is up for it, and you can say "Me, this guy, this gal and this dog all feel we could use a forum to do X" then chances are we'll create such a section or thread.
It has become clear to the staff that there are two methods of thinking amongst people who come to this forum. I'll divide them into two types for clarity.
Type 1 - Those who prefer quick, snappy threads that they can catch up, be informed of developments they didn't know about, share a couple comments, a few questions or ideas and see what everyone else is thinking.
Type 2 - Those who want in depth, fairly persistent and ongoing discussion that can mould, change and speculate/debate/conceptualise wildly and freely.
Type 1 and Type 2 both form significant portions of the forum's population. Here we can see Type 2 making it clear that they don't like how Type 1 works because they find it restrictive, but we've also had numerous PM's and mentions from people in Type 1 who are not a fan of how threads become crowded due to Type 2 and operate at a speed far too much for them to feel they want to read it all from.
That is why, as a team, we created areas for both these types of discussion. News threads for people who want snappier approaches, and General threads for unlimited, "whatever you want" discussion. People can now choose how they want to view the forum, and use or ignore whatever threads they want to.
However, I must speak to both sides here and say that the passive aggressive and insulting implications need to stop. We're not going to tolerate people targeting others with barbed comments, just as much as we frown upon talking down on others. If you feel someone is, then report it and move on.
UKDF is made up of people who've come from various types of places. MP.net functioned very stringently off of the "news only" type threads and discussion threads kept separate. Many people enjoy that. Conversely, Think Defence encouraged freeform discussion. Many people enjoy that.
Please accept that both manners of using this forum exist.
If you ever feel like you don't have somewhere to do something you want to do, just ask us. If demand is up for it, and you can say "Me, this guy, this gal and this dog all feel we could use a forum to do X" then chances are we'll create such a section or thread.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Reorganisation please
I think that (some stuff deleted in the middle) is a fair summary.RetroSicotte wrote:It has become clear to the staff that there are two methods of thinking amongst people who come to this forum. I'll divide them into two types for clarity.
Type 1 - Those who prefer quick, snappy threads that they can catch up, be informed of developments they didn't know about, share a couple comments, a few questions or ideas and see what everyone else is thinking.
Type 2 - Those who want in depth, fairly persistent and ongoing discussion that can mould, change and speculate/debate/conceptualise wildly and freely.
[...]
UKDF is made up of people who've come from various types of places. MP.net functioned very stringently off of the "news only" type threads and discussion threads kept separate. Many people enjoy that. Conversely, Think Defence encouraged freeform discussion. Many people enjoy that.
If I take myself to the "imagenary world" I could also see that TD (as a person, having to bear the load of all the overheat coming onto the Threads, especially to the "Current" Open Thread, then) decided to cut that, before drawing back more generally.
Yes, it is a lot to take. Now, go and see what all of the discussion the F-16 thread (site!) discussion has evolved to.
- I have never even logged onto the site; going by the quotes from there
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Reorganisation please
As a person who both contributes sharp one line comments and also gets on his soap box to deliver a rant/reasoned argument on various topics I strongly believe there is room for all. Very very few people here actually try to slap down other contributors, yes they may have strong and differing views on a subject, but that is part of the core make up of a good forum. The very small minority who may resort to personal attacks should be chastised off camera by the moderators after which no further action should be taken. BUT in no way should any particle of political correctness be allowed to infiltrate this or any genuine forum. This is why I rare watch the news or pay attention to headlines. Genuine and open discussion is both a joy and a cornerstone of society.
Yes in many thread I have pulled out more than a few of my dwindling hair on the "Fantasy" world some comments originate from but there is nothing wrong with looking on the positive/optimistic side of an argument. My nature is to be a hyper realist verging on a downright pessimist, and I actually enjoy my soap box moments as I find them therapeutic, as they say better out then in. I also enjoy the reaction they can sometimes initiate in other contributors. Having contribution form people who use Stone Tablets, Smart phones or Crystal Ball to make their case makes things more interesting to say the least especially when responding to a single topic.
Yes in many thread I have pulled out more than a few of my dwindling hair on the "Fantasy" world some comments originate from but there is nothing wrong with looking on the positive/optimistic side of an argument. My nature is to be a hyper realist verging on a downright pessimist, and I actually enjoy my soap box moments as I find them therapeutic, as they say better out then in. I also enjoy the reaction they can sometimes initiate in other contributors. Having contribution form people who use Stone Tablets, Smart phones or Crystal Ball to make their case makes things more interesting to say the least especially when responding to a single topic.
Re: Reorganisation please
We appear to have duplicate threads for National Ship Building Strategy. One in General discussion. One in UK defence aerospace equipment.