A bit late to join the conversation due to having spent the last days travelling back from a family Christmas and all that, but here goes.

First and foremost I have to reply to the "You have no right to complain on the existing missions because you don't make missions yourself" argument. It's BS. It's like saying one has no right to complain about the elected president just because one didn't candidate for the president post. We are all playing the missions, aren't we? Thus everyone has the right to complain on the hosted missions. Of course we prefer complaints to be constructive and thought through, but it doesn't change if one is allowed to complain or not. Just how the complain is received.

Secondly I have to recommend the admins to check server history (for example http://arma2.swec.se/server/list). Maybe Fallout wins the vote again, but what if it has been played two times already earlier that evening? Might be wise to simply say "No. We run a couple of standard missions more before that." not to scare people away. Even if they like Fallout playing the same 3 hour mission for the 3rd time in the same evening might be too much. Especially that close after eachother.

I totally agree that we have to make sure that as many tastes as possible falling within the defines of TacticalGamer should be satisfied by a diversity in missions. But should TG really satisfy EVERY taste, be it milsim shooter, real-time strategy game, SimCity-lookalike, roleplaying game, sports game, flight arcade game, and so on, trying to make everyone play every single niche of computer games when they've booted up ArmA2 which is a shooter, milsim or not?

I commend that TG is stretching its limits as to what is put on the server, and although I personally loathe the free-form missions and generally leave the server when they are selected I really appreciate the effort put into them. As a fellow mission-maker it is fantastic to see what magic has been done with the game engine through imagination, innovation and scripting.
BUT! Is it really TG? It is a well known and repeatedly proven fact that something that tries to give everyone what they want generally fails at giving ANYONE what they really want (look at games/franches turned mainstream trying to get as many sales as possible, instead ending up having no substance what so ever, like for example Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising). What is wrong really with enforcing a certain niche and making sure that said niche is consistently performed well?

There's nothing forcing TG's ArmA2 to be The One And Only Game™. If people are in a mood to play something else than said niche they can change server or game, and they can come back to TG's ArmA2 when they feel like playing what TG offers.

One example could be to have some smaller special events (i.e. not the big Sunday events, but in between those on the calendar) where free-form missions are played, where people are prepared for it and thus know what to expect. For example "This Thursday between 20:00 GMT and 04:00 GMT we will only be playing free-form missions on Alpha. Please use Bravo for other missions during that time."

I can say at least for myself that I've had trouble getting online lately due to those times I have felt like playing ArmA2 there's either some (in my eyes) obscure mission being played, or the standard of playing being so degenerate that I log after one mission and goes to do something else. There can be really grand moments, but I find it really odd that I've lately had more fun and milsim with pubbies on Bravo than I get with old-timers on Alpha.