New board format questions

[6milPhil]

Just read the new rules regarding this sub-forum and I wondered if the cut off of 2000 is a rolling one, so next year might we post up to 2001 and so on?

What about fictional conflicts in fictional lands, or models of kit or personnel post-2000 are these off limits?

Also conflicts which started before 2000 but were still ongoing after 2000?

I must admit some disappointment at this decision as one of my main interests is ultra-modern. Conflicts which are finished and part of popular culture are suddenly barred, without any input from the members - it's a shame. I didn't realise that unknown members using back channels might have such influence when I imagine they're a minority.

On a tangent can anyone recommend a good euro-centric board where these historical conflicts might be discussed?

[CptJake]

As a BIG fan of moderns/current conflict (and fictionalized versions there of) gaming the decision annoys me quite a bit.  So I too would like to know if there are any decent boards, euro-centric or not, where the mods won't squash relevant topics.

The Ambush Alley forums may be a good start, and I doubt Shawn will be too annoyed if other rulesets are mentioned on his boards, but they are not nearly as well populated/active as LAF.

[Cherno]

Well, the administration's decisions are of course to be respected and also we have to remind ourselves that this board is not a democracy where everyone has a say. I am also thankful to the administration and moderation for doing an unpaid job in their spare time.

That being said, I too would like to voice my opinion and say that I'm rather disappointed by the new rules, mostly because it doesn't make much sense to me.
If ethics are to be considered, I have a hard time believing that more than a very, very tiny minority has expressed their concerns relating to gaming modern conflicts. I'd actually be surprised if it was more than two or three.
If the problem is ISIS being declared a terrorist organisation, why not keep it the same as with the absolutely understandable banning of symbols pertaining to Nazi Germany? Banning any depiction of ISIS in wargaming related contexts should be enough, no? I don't see the reason why threads about wargaming the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars would be a legal problem.

[former user]

shall we not leave such decisions to those who have to run the forum and therefore carry the responsibilities?
I do not agree myself very often with certain things, but it should be clear by now that the forum owner prefers to take the widest precautions and this is understandable.
If You have legally founded and constructive propositions, PM the Prof. and I am sure he will discuss it with You.
I understand that this topic is for clarifying questions - other topics voicing the opinion have been locked too.

As much as I like to discuss things, avoiding debates about sensitive topics like this was also a goal of this new regulations, as I understood...

[CptJake]

As much as I like to discuss things, avoiding debates about sensitive topics like this was also a goal of this new regulations, as I understood...

Then it would seem to be a huge fail, decisions/regs like these spawn debate.

But back on topic, here is the link to the AAG forums: http://ambushalleygames.com/forum/

[Westfalia Chris]

We have decided to relax the restrictions by moving up to the turn of the century. We do not intend to extend the period any further, and, furthermore, please note that the post-2000 restrictions are primarily focused on those aspects of modern wargaming which are most likely to cause unproductive debate and arguments. Presenting actual models and miniatures is still very much encouraged, since it contributes to the role of the LAF as a wargaming forum concerned with presenting actual results rather than hot air debate.

Also, it is not the case that complaints only started to roll in recently. We've had issues ever since we introduced the new board back in 2009, although contentious topics have noticeably increased over the last few years. Combined with the increasingly tricky legal situation, what we have now is the most acceptable option available to us right now. The alternative would either be increased moderation, which is obviously not popular and bound to result in the occasional arbitrary decision, or actual closure of the board.

We appreciate that there are people out there genuinely interested in gaming this period, but he have found time and again that the proportion of contentious thread and insensitive people causing issues is far higher than with any other board, with the exception of the Open Talk board, and everybody knows what we had to do with that one.