New Forum Structure Proposals

[Axalon]

First of all, Tiaexz you have yet to answer this question – “have you ever played any TW at all”? If so, what TW-games then and how many years?

***

Cut short because you are obviously going to win an argument against a strawman which I never created or had any part in and what I did say taken out of context.

Really? Alright.... Yes or no….

• This is a TW-site, is not? Y/N?
• Have this site not been so for more the 10 years?
• Has not the index on this site been changed (since Aug 2012)?
• Does not other TW-sites exist?
• Does not this site have too compete with them somehow?
• Did you not forward ideas and suggestions about TW-coverage on that new index change, on this site?
• Did that idea not concern 6 TW-games, at least?
• Are not 6 out of 7 existing TW-games, a majority of such?
• Did not you somehow advocate your idea before it was implemented?
• Was not your basic idea on TW-coverage for 6 TW-games basically implemented on this index change?
• Have not the effects of your idea on TW-coverage now materialized on this site, as it is now implemented?
• Does not that change and have an impact on the overall and general coverage of TW, on this site?
• Does not that change influence the circumstances people (interested in TW) get on this site?
• Did you not make statements as to support and defend these changes made on TW-coverage, on this site (after my first question to you)?
• Have you not provided your reasons and basis for this change in TW-coverage - as in “the why” it should be done?
• Have not I then questioned both your provided reasons and basis for it?
• Have not I done that within the framework outlined above?

Do you deny anything of the above?

All I have done beyond that context, was to use the analogy of cats, the coverage of such etc. etc. as to show how (seemingly) screwed up your statements on TW-coverage are once placed and viewed in full context. I replaced “TW-coverage” with “cat-coverage” as to set things into a more striking perspective as to make the point come across more clearly. Before all that I asked you directly if you had excluded TW (ETW, RTW, STW1 etc. etc.) in your statement of post:36. You then answer, I quote…

The old sections took up far too much room and were pretty pointless. The whole making a single discussion area with sub-forums was my idea originally and it works very well.

If there were any doubts whatsoever that your statement here was as not intended to concern TW-coverage somehow, your next sentence killed that possible doubt in full… I quote…

To put it this way, the last time NTW got a post for example was back in Jun. Under the old format…

It was then obvious that you did include TW in your statement and that you had also actually played an active part in advocating and creating the new circumstances that we now on TW-coverage on this site – due to the changes made on index. It was basically your idea, and you pointed that out…. Dedicated sections for TW-games, and bothering to make distinctions between TW-games by section was - by you – in effect declared as “pretty pointless”. And, you have certainly acted accordingly as that is clearly reflected in the result we now have on the index, by your initiative. So, you don’t get to say “which I never created or had any part in…” because we both know that it not true.

As for the “and what I did say taken out of context.” Really? The context I have discussed with you are TW, TW-coverage in general and in regards to the index-change on this site in particular, is it not? I have not deviated from that context, neither have your claims and statements that I have questioned and responded to, right? If in doubt, read the above all over again. If you are still want to be serious in your claim, by all means explain how so then…

Analogy is incorrect due to some factors since there is still separation. It is like having six separate auditoriums (romantic comedy, stand-up comedy, thriller, drama, adventure and action) and instead of all six, there is now "comedy", "drama" and "adventure and action" merged.

There is not separation enough… Not by section there is not, which is what matters in regards to the index. A sub-section, as is now the case for 6 out of the 7 existing TW-games. Sub-sections will never be as powerful and clear borders as regular sections. Sub-sections can not be collapsed as they are not significant enough to enable to such possibilities on the index. Sections are however… Sections are the ultimate borders and each and every TW-game deserves and should have that distinction - and especially so on a TW-site. Now - correct me if I am wrong - TW is as far as I can tell, the most important thing this particular site can cover on general terms, as it is a TW-site, specializing in covering TW universally - that is what it is supposed to do, that is what this site is about. TW, regardless the game, is thus the very stuff that more then anything else should have separate sections on this site as everything else should be secondary on such a site. Why? Because it is a TW-site.

Yet by your initiative that is no longer the case - save STW2 (as usual). As all other TW-games no longer have any separate sections anymore due to this change. So, now you explain to me (and the rest of the world) the grounds and basis for the “why TW-games should not be treated and distinguished as separate games” by section, on this TW-site? Whenever ready….

It is pointless having empty auditoriums when they can easily be side-by-side together enjoying constant input and energy from each other.

That’s an assertion. Upon what grounds and basis exactly are all this somehow true? This in the relevant TW-context obviously. So how does a RTW related discussion somehow make an input on an ETW related discussion, on a regular basis? How does MTW1-coverage lend energy to NTW-coverage (for instance) on a regular basis? If you ever want me (and others) to believe that somehow - then you will simply have to prove it. As simple as that. Otherwise, “dismissed as unserious”. Your call…

There is no loss, only gain from such a merger.

Another assertion… Upon what grounds and basis this time? Prove it, or have another “dismissed as unserious”. Your call…

I would like to see where I said "Total War is pointless for this forum" in any shape and form, …

Yup, me too.... Anyway, you did however say that the previous coverage of TW-games were “pretty pointless” to keep. And, you did say that the now existing 6 sub-sections in 1 section that have now replaced all the previous TW-coverage on the index, works very well - according to you. STW2 excluded here, of course… So in effect, roughly 85% of all (now) existing TW-games and the previous coverage of all that have been dismantled into 6 sub-sections in 1 section to cover it all. Which obviously is not the same thing as "Total War is pointless for this forum" - but - it does kind of lend it self to the interpretation and impression that “Total War is pretty pointless for this forum” – if you ask me (all things considered). Anyway, there are still those 15% that is not supposedly “pretty pointless” to distinguish by dedicated sections, according to you, right? Thus it will never truly be a "Total War is pointless for this forum". It’s close, but that will still not suffice to go all the way to make up a juicy “Total War is pointless for this forum”-statement. Fully agreed. Those mighty 15% and them 6 sub-sections in 1 section certainly do make a difference on that note. No arguments there…

“…and no, calling a couple of sub-sections as "redundant"(/pointless) as they impede total war discussion rather than encourage it does not in any shape of form imply anything remotely that you are suggesting.”

More of the same… Let’s at least try to be honest, shall we? What according to you was supposedly “a couple of sub-sections” was in reality some 5 full TW-sections (STW1, MTW1, RTW, MTW2, ETW/NTW) with 3 sub-sections each (so, some 15 sub-sections then), was it not? So, it was more then “a couple of sub-sections”, right? Had it been some 4-5 sub-sections then “a couple of sub-sections” would be true but 15 sub-sections and 5 sections? No way that will ever be just “a couple of sub-sections”…Anyway, was it not your idea that all that should be compressed into 1 section with 6 sub-sections, as that – according to you - supposedly would work very well? The provided (still unsupported btw) reason for all that was as far as I can tell…

The old sections took up far too much room and were pretty pointless. The whole making a single discussion area with sub-forums was my idea originally and it works very well.

Your provided (and dismissed) basis for all that was…

To put it this way, the last time NTW got a post for example was back in Jun. Under the old format, this took up a ton of screen real estate and it made the area look like a barren ghost-town with no clear directions for new users (and arguably, existing users).

I have already commented on both these two statements as such in previous post (post:41). You have also yet to provide any actual valid grounds for you first statement - as I have already explained to you why the second will never work as such… That jive don’t fly… And so, I still fail to see how it all somehow add up and truly benefit this site and the people that come here in general in regards to TW, and the coverage of such. What I have done is to put your statements under scrutiny, applied some clearly healthy and relevant perspectives on it, such as including this site, what it is, what it is supposed to be, what it has been, what kind of people can be (reasonably) expected to come here, why that people might come here, and how poorly your ideas and notions seem to reflect or consider such realities. I have put your statements into full context - not out of context. Other then that, this following claim…

…as they [sections or sub-sections] impede total war discussion rather than encourage it…

Let’s have the actual basis and grounds for that assertion, shall we? I realize that this very notion is central for both your argumentation and actions and thus take this chance to convince me (and others) of its merits… Prove it… Otherwise have another “dismissed as unserious” on this stuff.

Personal experiences of a multitude of totalwar.org visitors is a very good indicator. But I guess I did the impossible of "not knowing that".

How many is this multitude of visitors of yours? 5? 10? 20? 30 people?

Even if it was a 100+ people (which I doubt) it will still only be truly valid for them, it is ridiculous and stupid to assume that this will be valid for all others or even a majority of others. It only serves as an indicator for the person(s) that actually made such claims – hardly for everybody else - which is exactly my point. You argue as if that would be supposedly valid for all (or possibly a majority), while you have no way in hell of knowing if that is actually true or not. This is exactly why it will not survive any serious scrutiny – ever. You can obviously claim or declare it to be true if you like, but you can never actually prove it and that’s the problem with it right there. This is “the why” your “very good indicator” is not that good after all. If it makes you feel any better this is a universal circumstance that applies to all of us, including yours truly.

- A