Clarification please.

[6milPhil]

I've just had a thread locked without having all of my questions answered. I wonder if someone would be good enough to clarify the two outstanding points;

What about fictional conflicts in fictional lands?

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

cheers,

[Captain Blood]

What ho, Phil 

The question about fictional conflicts is covered in Arlequin's post here http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=72390.0 under Imagi-nations (note this has yet to be updated to 1945 - 2000, but the principle is the same).

As far as conflicts that began before 2000 and continued after 2000 - well, yes, obviously 2000 is a somewhat arbitary cut-off point, but the intent is clear, surely? Ultra-modern - i.e. current or very recent real-world wars are no longer acceptable as gaming or discussion topics on this forum.
Provided people keep that rule in mind, I don't think there should be a problem.

I'm not the moderator for the board in question - that's just my opinion based on the many discussions the moderators have had about this difficult decision.

[6milPhil]

Thanks mate.  I haven't read every wall o text regarding this so thanks for pointing it out.

I'm not sure how hard a decision it would have been to make, a sensitive one perhaps. It's not hard to ban stuff, but the mods won't ever get the toothpaste back in the tube.

I do think the situation could do with some definition, because it is sensitive, and the locking down of any effort by the members in discussing it doesn't really help as in providing the complainants with security makes everyone else feel less secure.

Sadly I remain disappointed, but thanks for not just barking a response and locking it down, which is wrong and verging on the deliberately rude. 

[Arlequín]

 My apologies Phil, I've been snowed under at work, combined with unexpectedly dodgy internet access... which prevented my letting anyone know I was out of touch.

Richard has the right of it; real conflicts after 2000 are verboten, as are near facsimiles masquerading as imagi-nations. Completely fictional conflicts to the present, even those including real world protagonists, are fine - at the discretion of Chris and myself. I would imagine that there would be some dialogue before an offending thread was shut down however.

As soon as I can I will address the changes that need changing, so bear with me please. 

[6milPhil]

No worries Jim.

Please don't think I'm trying to be difficult, it's just a large part of my gaming as is LAF and there's a feeling of having the rug pulled from under, as I imagine you realise.

My ultra-modern takes place in "Jihadistan", typically so I can roll out a range of sides from older style IDF, Trans-Jordan Army, PLO, Brits, Germans, even Yanks and of course Mujahadeen more modernly referred to as Taliban with a mix of old and new kit to them. A fiction of course but it could be seen as a masquerade, so is this still valid?

Also my barely started but long running "Generation X" project, five humvees in the style of, I'm now thinking that is permissible, but I'd like to confirm it before I take a pile of photos and post another one of my wonderful threads.

For us proles this has just come out of the blue and is a bit of a shock, but I think with a little well mannered discussion we can work out exactly what the new rules mean. At first viewing they look quite harsh, but I imagine they're not as bad as all that. Also the way it's run is too divisive for my tastes, we're all chums but I think we're at risk of becoming mildly alienated from each other and that's no fun for anyone.

Good luck with your Internet, take your time I'm in no rush, and thanks for your patience.

[jp762]

...maybe a bit off topic. I just bought Skirmish Sangin and a pile of Empress Brits. Do I now keep them to myself and look for another forum?

[CptJake]

...maybe a bit off topic. I just bought Skirmish Sangin and a pile of Empress Brits. Do I now keep them to myself and look for another forum?

Yep, for the most part.  You could probably show pics of the painted figures, as long as you don't let us know what you intend to do with them or show them in the context of a battle report/game AAR.   I'm not sure which board showing pictures would be appropriate on, perhaps the workbench board.

[Captain Blood]

Pictures of figures, vehicles and modelling up to the present day are fine within the 'Conflicts that came out of the cold board'.
Discussions and gaming / battle reports of ultra modern stuff (ie post-2000) are not allowed. (The most recent post by Westfalia Chris in the rules thread here: http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=72390.0 explains it clearly).
For people who want to play games / talk about current or very recent conflicts, as discussed elsewhere in this connection, there are other wargaming sites where ultra-modern can be pursued as an interest.

[former user]

Yes, I think we got the hard facts by now.
The problem, as @Phil exemplifies lies with the fictional conflicts that derive from a non-fictional setting.

Quite often in SF, conflict issues and configurations are taken out of context and spinned into a different one in order to discuss solutions or to just tell a fun story, and this is where the post 2000 needs a sort of a "orientation", to clear insecurities and have us all concentrating on the fun  stuff.

And in this I totally agree that some decent discussion about "helping guidelines" cannot be of harm, right?

[6milPhil]

Pictures of figures, vehicles and modelling up to the present day are fine within the 'Conflicts that came out of the cold board'.
Discussions and gaming / battle reports of ultra modern stuff (ie post-2000) are not allowed. (The most recent post by Westfalia Chris in the rules thread here: http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=72390.0 explains it clearly).

So in my examples above that's a yes - yes?

Just want to be crystal clear. 

[Brummie]

I believe for Science Fiction you ought to be fine, so long as, again, no obvious references are made to current on goings.

After all, a lot of what is technically happening now, is not really unique, not even in the past 20-30 years.

I suppose the best way to describe the rules would be like it was copy-right. I.E no images, names or specific context etc that are clearly copying particular organizations/events.  

[Brummie]

So in my examples above that's a yes - yes?

Just want to be crystal clear. 

I'd say you'd be fine Phil, so long as you don't slap a very controversial image/sign onto your Humvee's or provide a context that could be linked into very current events.

[Captain Blood]

So in my examples above that's a yes - yes?

Just want to be crystal clear. 

Understandably.
Phil, I would say so too. But Jim is the board moderator, and Chris is the global moderator. I'm sure they'll get back to you with a definitive answer once their current 'real life' demands and / or access issues are sorted out

[6milPhil]

Sure, thanks. I'm in no hurry. 

[Arlequín]

Phil, as it stands in principle I (and I'm pretty sure Chris too) would have no issues with a fictionalised country as you describe. I'd like to give a hard and fast ruling for you but it is going to be more on a case by case basis. Obviously this might lead to some 'if', 'but' and 'maybe' type situations, but other than a blanket ban, I can see no other way to keep most people happy and to stick with the direction we are now taking on LAF.

As always I am happy to work with anyone, either within a thread on the board or via PM, to resolve any problems. The rules are the bottom line and the fallback position obviously... but neither do we really want to spoil anyone's fun and enjoyment any more than is necessary either.

Post 2000 figures and models featured on a sort of 'no names, no pack drill' basis are welcome on the board, as are manufacturers' releases... the Captain and others have it pretty much on the money, so I won't repeat what has already been said.