An example of a "Model WI" is needed

[Andy H]

My so called thread "USN clashes with the RN" in WW1 was not my choosing, i was never consulted over the split, it was done deliberately because i fear the powers to be wanted an excuse to kill off the thread, or more importantly that line of What If, the above thread was split from the "Franz von Papen Hits Pay Dirt" thread, all the background information was there to read, and i would have given you at least an ounce of nouce to know that.

Hi Rodderick/Stefan

The splitting was my doing and as such any blame for its birth as such is mine. The intial idea had formulatted in the Papen thread, and I thought it an interesting POD to warrant a seperate discussion. However rather than actually discussing the military aspects it became evident that the political aspect and reasoning for such a conflagration would overshadow it, hence I closed it.

Regards

Andy H

[Von Schadewald]

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&start=30

Look, I'm more confused than ever given the ever changing parameters of this WI.

My suggestion is that the thread author goes away, re-reads this WI and comes back with a 'new' WI based around his intial thoughts, but with a more limited and focused scenario.

Some of us are more focussed than others, but see only the limited picture. Some are defocussed. but see the expansive picture. Some of us are better at thinking laterally. Others at thinking vertically. All have their advantages and disadvantages, and everyone contributing and helping the other. Polymaths today don't exist. Some are more easily confused than others.

But to actually lock a promising thread, just because of mild 'confusion' is, IMO, unwarranted & too drastic.

Is the originator of a thread not allowed to adjust his 'parameters' i.e. does the discussion have to stay so rigid, limited and staid?

Indeed, do the Rules give a formal definition of what WI thread "parameters" even are?

[Andy H]

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&start=30

Look, I'm more confused than ever given the ever changing parameters of this WI.

My suggestion is that the thread author goes away, re-reads this WI and comes back with a 'new' WI based around his intial thoughts, but with a more limited and focused scenario.

Some of us are more focussed than others, but see only the small picture. Some are defocussed. but see the big picture. Some of us are better at thinking laterally. Others at thinking vertically. Some are expansive thinking, others narrow thinking. All have their advantages and disadvantages, and everyone contributing and helping the other. Polymaths today don't exist. Some are more easily confused than others. But to actually lock a promising thread, just because of mild 'confusion' is, IMO, unwarranted & too drastic. Is the originator of a thread not allowed to adjust his parameters i.e. does the discussion have to stay so rigid, limited and staid?

Hi von S

Your berating me for locking your thread, yet you have done nothing to address these issues.

Yes WI can evolve but in those 3pages we had something like 4 major POD's, and that does cause confusion be it mild or otherwise. I'm asking for some clarity for your WI, you need to define it and give enough respect and time to those engaging with you in it. Your means of answering a different POV by changing the actual dynamic isn't an answer. Its a vehicle for more confusion. Your Saddam thread being a classic case.

I've not heard the term Polymath used for many a year, but they do exist. However I would suggest that having an idea is not the basis for WI without first understanding the question your posing. Anyone can ask a question or pose a WI but few can give the relevent information to reach an answer.

Regards

Andy H

[Peter H]

I've removed some inane comments,some insulting.

Persist and they'll be deleted on sight.

[Roddoss72]

Well i though my response was very good, is there any chance of sending it to me via the PM, or is it gone for good.

[Andy H]

Hello Everyone

I have changed this post to an Announcement.

I have done this so I can address some issues that are arising on a continual basis.

The WI Guidelines clearly state what is required from a WI yet for whatever reason people seem to disregard them in their eagerness to post a response. The Guidelines have been in place for over 5yrs and on the whole they have served there purpose well, given where we were prior to them.

The first step to a good, enduring, interesting and passionate WI is the thread author giving us a clear scenario to work within. He must be specific about what he wants the WI to concentrate on and also give us his explanation as to how and why the scenario for this WI was attained.

At this juncture we all have to be mature in what were asking and how we respond. The scenario must be plausible and not just based on 'because I've said it, then it is' attitude.Equally those responding given a plausible scenario shouldn't endlessly say 'that wouldn't have happened' and thus killing the WI at birth or sending it of in a completely different direction. You can make your view known (to a point) but the main reason for your response should be in answer to the scenario presented.

As I have mentioned the thread author should be specific, but also he should try and focus his WI, so that we dont have numerous potential POD's because he a has waxed lyrical about all the possible ripple effects his WI will cause. These type of WI's are a cause for chaos at best. The author has to keep involved with his thread, he has to keep developing the thread within its context given the information coming from other members.

Its very easy to snipe or make crass statements about a WI, but there not constructive and just plain uncivil-so cut them out. Some encouragement or just acknowledgement can go along way in nursing a thread along, rather than a cheap shot which will drag it down. I have seen some posts which are nothing but thinly disguised put-downs. Resist the urge to post such things as it not only harms the thread but also it harms you and your standing within the wider membership. Please keep any personnel grudge or dislike for a member out of this section and forum full stop.You would be amazed what PM's I get regarding this.

Moderating a thread-Well ultimately that falls on my shoulders or my fellow Moderators, and not on the regular members. Now with the best will in the world I cant be here 24/7 and neither can I read every post. On the whole I ensure that a thread is within the guidelines and on the whole, unless I have an interest in the subject matter, I just dip in from time to time to ensure things stay on track. Now that won't catch every nuance and some threads develop quickly, especially when there's a fault. But again some members cant resist digging the knive in and making a post. Please resisit that urge and inform me or any Moderator.

As it say in the Guidelines, the WI exist in a huge expanse of grey but the rules etc give it some boundaries and parameters to work within. These cannot cover every eventuality that may arise and so they are somewhat fluid and dynamic, but the basis is there and thats what we all have to work towards.

Regards

Andy H

[Marcus]

An exchange containing little but comments about other members was removed.

If you have comments about how a specific members handles himself in the What If section I suggest you contact Andy by pm.

/Marcus

[Mostlyharmless]

Can I suggest that it would generally be helpful if WIs had the time of the proposed action in the title. One of the most common causes of long and confused threads seems to be debates on two apparently similar ideas such as Germany decides to focus on the Mediterranean on 25th June 1940 or on 1st January 1941 (although the actual dates are often not explicitly given). Unfortunately, the conditions at the two dates were significantly different leading to confused discussions. Similarly, the US political response to Japan moving South in 1940 and 1941 would need to be discussed separately although this does not seem to have caused confusion yet.

[LWD]

It would also provide a clue in the title as to whether the initiator had read and was abiding by the rules.

[Andy H]

Can I suggest that it would generally be helpful if WIs had the time of the proposed action in the title. One of the most common causes of long and confused threads seems to be debates on two apparently similar ideas such as Germany decides to focus on the Mediterranean on 25th June 1940 or on 1st January 1941 (although the actual dates are often not explicitly given). Unfortunately, the conditions at the two dates were significantly different leading to confused discussions. Similarly, the US political response to Japan moving South in 1940 and 1941 would need to be discussed separately although this does not seem to have caused confusion yet.

Hi

I will give that idea some thought, though I can see me editing alot of thread titles

Logic would dictate that the relevent date and time would loom large within the body of the WI threads intial post but given the whimsy of some posters I shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't

Regards

Andy H

[Von Schadewald]

I really don't see why my WI
Alternate 1943 Med Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=190332

is so markedly inferior to mikeDizzie's WIs

Alternate 1941 Med Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=189797
and
Alternate 1942 Med Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=189798

& in violation of exactly what rule, that it actually warranted being locked?!

[Andy H]

I really don't see why my WI
Alternate 1943 Med Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=190332

is so markedly inferior to mikeDizzie's WIs

Alternate 1941 Med Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=189797
and
Alternate 1942 Med Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=189798

& in violation of exactly what rule, that it actually warranted being locked?!

Hi v.S

These were some of the first posts by mikeDizzie's and I decided to give him some latitude, given that they had developed somewhat in my absence and also he had put some thought into it. Granted they aren't ideal, but as I said I gave him some latitude.

Your latest WI thread (which I locked) was just but a statement posing nothing other than the war lasts longer! You've been on here a number of yrs with various ups and downs. Thus you have no excuse not to know how this section of the Forum works and what is required for a valid WI.

Regards

Andy H

[waldzee]

I too am a bit miffed that some of my threads have been locked. The Moderator runs a tight shop, but as of late has become a tad too tight, and also inconsistent in application of "the rules", IMO. I'll continue to contribute to other people's WI threads, but I won't be initiating any more here, as to see an original WI idea, the flower of one's thought process and imagination, so swiftly locked, in disuasion of the pursuit of novel human knowledge, and being that as we get older we cannot always maintain the high 'WI literary' standards that are nominally required, is too bitter a pill to swallow. I see that decorum and focus is maintained on other laxer military WI/AH forums, with only occasional recourse to locking.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My opinion( & I've had threads locked, plus a two week ban for 'excessive personal wisdom') is 'so what?"
You haven't lost anything.
Most discussion boards either lock down without explanation:
or like Stormfront & Youtube, let the comments run to the insanity point.

Get a coffee, pet the cat, let it go.. We are all 'big boys & girls'. If anyone needs an in depth personal 'coaching' for lock downs, I suggest postng at ' poets R us.com'

[Von Schadewald]

Some people take the pursuit of novel human knowledge, of which WIs are a branch, and its thwarting/censorship, a tad more seriously than petting the cat.

If you were the moderator, Waldzee, in your opinion, what exactly in my Alternate 1943 Med Capaign warrants its actually locking, and thereby denying the readership the pleasure and edification of studying the opinions of others more expert expatiating on historical what might have beens:

"Rommel's nasal TB responds to treatment. He stays for Kasserine. Frühlingserwachen is a success, Bone & Tebessa falling. US casualties are horrendous. More Tigers & even some Panthers reach Tunisa. Shermans, Valentines and Crusaders are torched like fireflies. Monty bungles Enfidaville and the 8th Army is held at the Mareth Line and bled white. Hitler is resolved to keep a toehold in Africa no matter what. Fw 190s are pulled from the Eastern Front and with aerial convoys under their heavy escort, Hitler raises Axis forces to nearly 1 million men. All Fritz X production is sent to the Med and 4 RN battleships and 4 heavy cruisers follow Roma within the month, with heavy loss of live. Despite depleting the Atlantic wolfpacks, Dönitz order U boats through the Straits, where they take a toll of US troop freighters. Mussolini's overthrow is delayed and the Germans are still present on the African continent in early 1944.

Net result: war ends one month sooner than in OTL"

[LWD]

Some people take the pursuit of novel human knowledge, of which WIs are a branch, and its thwarting/censorship, a tad more seriously than petting the cat.

This is a private server I believe. It's not really censorship for the owner to limit what can be discussed here, just as it isn't if you do the same in your own home.

If you were the moderator, Waldzee, in your opinion, what exactly in my Alternate 1943 Med Capaign warrants its actually locking, ...

If you check the guidlines for posting in this forum you should be able to find sufficient rational there with little difficulty.