Should we have trade forums?

Discussion in 'RLC' started by hellfyyr, May 4, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. We Sustain!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Would we benefit from having trade forums within the RLC forum?

    I am not suggesting we all become insular and only talk to our fellow tradesmen; merely that individual focus groups would enhance the RLC Forum experience and provide a focus where we could address those trade related burning issues.

    Think of the benefits, we could all stage cross-border raids into other trade areas, marvel at the complicated arguments in the Pioneer area (just kidding - I really like you chunky people), gasp at the dull supply issues and obtain those excellent recipes that the chefs have perfected...

    We could also get loads more moderators and mount an ARRSE takeover bid :D Sorry, lost my grip for a second there...

  2. Since all the current RLC forums are "apparently" only supported by ATs, then why not delete "RLC" and insert "AT trade". Oh , I saw a tank tranporter driver somehwere. Hmmm will he talk to himself? No chefs, no posties, no evidence of Sup Cons or Sup specs. .....??
  3. Exactly my point, if there were individual areas, people would be attracted to them and slowly a more diverse set of people would be seen in the main forum too!

    When all the threads seem to point at ATs, a lot of people get turned off and don't bother...
  4. Forgot Gods trade, Rad Ops. Without us, you would all crumble ;-)
  5. Hmmm, because no-one else can use a radio can they? I believe it is "Driver/Radio Operator"...

    As I have said on many threads; we are all as useful as each other!

    Plus if we gave you a forum, you would be doing morse stuff and shagging each other no doubt!
  6. I love it when you bite....and you always do...keep it up :twisted:
  7. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    The answer to sub-forums in the RLC forum is NO!

    If you have a burning desire to keep a thread visible, let me know and I can make it a "sticky" which will keep it at the top of the forum.

    True, the majority do seem to be ATs, reason being they actively sell the site. With the corps being as diverse as it is, I would expect to see more non-AT members of the corps in here. A sad reflection on you if you can't manage to promote the site witin your units.

  8. Melchers, stop being so bloody heavy handed.

    The question posed was a reasonable one and had the potential to stimulate a reasoned debate. Fair enough, if a hierarchical structure is not possible within the forums then just explain this.


    Edited cause my spelling is Arrse....
  9. Thanks,
    As oppose to keeping the forum unpopular as there is nothing to draw people in!
  10. Here here......see, it even makes the Rad Op come in. Are there any more Rad Ops out there, or am I on my own here?
  11. Think the answer to that is 'Nothing heard, out...'
  12. You cannot even communicate between yourselves apparently...
  13. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    If there were trade forums withing the main RLC forum then some of you would be alone in there.

    Why the AT threads should put people off I don't know. If they post trade related subjects then those not interested wouldn't add anything to the thread, but the fact it is in the RLC forum would show how diverse things were.

    For example I don't recall seeing any Port Ops in here, so if there was a Port Op sub-forum it may stay empty. Any visitors will choose the popular sub-forums to read/post in. Things would still be as they are now but not as public so to speak.

    So as I said before the way to get other trades in is to promote the site.

    I'll put some stickies on as a trial.
  14. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    You've now got sub-sections as a trial.

    So get 'em in.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.