Heh.. That's just because you don't like what we have to say... Why cant we have freedom of speech as well...Duke wrote:OK dicks....no Canadians except Ted. There, clear enough?Tammer in Philly wrote:Most of the population of Canada is still south of the UP and Maine.
Proposal 1: new sub-forum
All chickens should be free-range. I only eat or get eggs from free range. I only shoot free range chickens that run across my front yard with my 10-22. They are fast little bastards.Brian in TN wrote:Soooo we can debate the rights of chickens? KFC aint gunna be very happy about it.
Lets do this!
I am really just shooting the bull though. I never go to KFC anymore. Their stuff is good though.
It feels a bit titty nippily here tonight.
-
Adam W in MN
- Posts: 5055
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
- Location: Don't waste my motherf***in' time!
- Contact:
-
briansmith
- Posts: 508
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
- Location: 12020
I like the idea, but I share this worry. To whatever extent my donation dollars (er, both of them?) get used to police and patrol that kind of behaviour, such that it detracts from what else the administration might rather spend time on here, I dislike it.ldsbeaker wrote:Troll: Hai guise!
I don't play well with others and have a polarizing opinion that i will argue for days...
Mye28: O RLY? We love encouraging nasty behavior! You'll get all kinds of attention from people that run the site AND your OWN area!
Troll: awsum, you mean I can be a raging anus and you will bend the forum just for me and people like me?
Mye28: yup! Welcome! Don't worry about the litterbox, just crap anywhere you like! We'll clean up after you just like an infant!
Troll: suweet! Sign me up!
What are the risks of trying this and then having to discontinue it if/when it doesn't work? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm just too worn out right now to consider anything carefully except my next...beverage!
I agree, HOWEVER, "excellent managers" typically do not invent programs that they will also manage; especially superfluous programs that are in no way related the mission of their management.vinceg101 wrote:I will say that those in charge of keeping this site running have been (and will likely continue to be) excellent management.
briansmith wrote:What are the risks of trying this and then having to discontinue it if/when it doesn't work? That's not a rhetorical question.
The risks are pretty minimal, i guess.
I don't wish this new venture ill or an early demise, but I also feel that it will be short lived... Or it's participants may be, which is basically the same thing.
I understand the purpose and exercise of handing a man enough rope to hang himself with, but you (management) are only asking for trouble here. More trouble than it's worth and WAY more trouble than you deserve for your selfless donation of time and services.
It's obvious people can't handle the conversations you want to hide in a new subforum in an adult manner. That is THEIR problem, not yours. Rather than hide them, public example is better.booker wrote:So beaker, please enlighten us to the proper policy.
Look at what happened to Matt. Everyone wanted to talk about it IN DETAIL. Just about everyone agreed that he was out of line.
Any other "physical threats" since?
If someone gets booted in the new subforum, obviously the details/conversation will only be in the subforum.
I say let the "timeouts" and "boots to the head" fly. We don't have anything to hide here. People will get the hint pretty dang quick.
-
RangerGress
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Jan 20, 2012
- Location: Savannah, GA
- Contact:
The idea of a separate OT forum with looser rules re. politeness is pretty common. Seems to work well too. The charm of this version is that if someone behaves especially poorly in the OT forum his time-out doesn't get him banned from the whole community. It's a clever idea.
Re. "excellent managers" typically do not invent programs that they will also manage; especially superfluous programs that are in no way related the mission of their management."
That's ah, pretty abstract. You really intend that as a useful comment that might add to the discussion?
Re. "excellent managers" typically do not invent programs that they will also manage; especially superfluous programs that are in no way related the mission of their management."
That's ah, pretty abstract. You really intend that as a useful comment that might add to the discussion?
I think what I'm settling on is that it'll be visible to all logged in members, but only those in the User Group will be able to post there.johnnye23 wrote:I don't care for the idea of having a secret subforum not viewed by the public. Let everyone see it or choose to ignore it.
The advantage of this, as Coldswede mentioned early on, is that the search crawlers aren't logged in members, and thus won't index that part of the site. That way, people won't stumble onto this site while searching for other information and think it's a good place to join to start grief. I don't think those people are very common, but it's better to keep us from finding us in the first place IMHO.
-
slimdevil27
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Nov 12, 2011
- Location: WA
I like tailpipe....but anything that bashes Duke is OK too. 
Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with the firearm related thread started by Brian, other than the obvious trolling late in the game by tones. Even that elicited no more than a "whatever". Even as misinformed and intentionally offensive as I found them, I still don't think they should have been deleted or censored. As I've stated before, I really don't care if someone is offended by my views. If they sit up all night with heartburn, wringing their hands with anxiety and fear, or even lash out with name calling, it's still THEIR problem. Not being offended is not a right. Your feelings do not trump free speech and while others opinions may throw you into a blind rage, that in and of itself is not a valid reason to regulate, impede, delete or ban that opinion. Your reaction to that opinion is just as telling as logically debating a counter point, and to that extent I find value in in all forms of dissent.
You would think by the reaction that Brian had posted pictures of dead and decapitated babies. It's an inanimate object completely devoid of any morality save that which you prescribe it. Do you have the same reaction when you see a soldier carrying an M16 with a STANDARD capacity magazine? How about a SWAT officer? Yet somehow in the possession of a law abiding citizen it becomes a monstrosity?
Unfortunately, due to the topic that started this it is hard not to see this new secret forum as a way to marginalize, segregate and hide those that stand firm in their belief of the second amendment. By regulating and censoring my first amendment right to speak about the second amendment or even to post "inflammatory views", we all lose. Is it really my problem that someone lacks the self control to ignore trolling? Or to stay out of a thread with a topic that they have consistently and emphatically attacked and consequently derailed?
I agree that it may be time for a separate forum however I don't think the delineation is clear. Topics about firearms, such as recommendations or repair questions belong in General conversation. If you want to debate gun control, that goes in The Tailpipe. The separation is clear one is a lawful, legal object whose ownership is protected by the constitution, the second is a political topic. Inflammatory issues that are political in nature, such as gun control, welfare reform, universal health care, the fiscal cliff, etc. are all political debates. Posting suggestions for a self defense weapon or what new toy you just got, should go in General Conversation. Hold those who shit in threads they are "offended by" accountable for their actions. To that end I'd have to agree with idsbeaker, giving into the "bullies" and moving threads that they find offensive, does absolutely nothing to fix the problem, it only encourages it further.
Put that in your tailpipe.
Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with the firearm related thread started by Brian, other than the obvious trolling late in the game by tones. Even that elicited no more than a "whatever". Even as misinformed and intentionally offensive as I found them, I still don't think they should have been deleted or censored. As I've stated before, I really don't care if someone is offended by my views. If they sit up all night with heartburn, wringing their hands with anxiety and fear, or even lash out with name calling, it's still THEIR problem. Not being offended is not a right. Your feelings do not trump free speech and while others opinions may throw you into a blind rage, that in and of itself is not a valid reason to regulate, impede, delete or ban that opinion. Your reaction to that opinion is just as telling as logically debating a counter point, and to that extent I find value in in all forms of dissent.
You would think by the reaction that Brian had posted pictures of dead and decapitated babies. It's an inanimate object completely devoid of any morality save that which you prescribe it. Do you have the same reaction when you see a soldier carrying an M16 with a STANDARD capacity magazine? How about a SWAT officer? Yet somehow in the possession of a law abiding citizen it becomes a monstrosity?
Unfortunately, due to the topic that started this it is hard not to see this new secret forum as a way to marginalize, segregate and hide those that stand firm in their belief of the second amendment. By regulating and censoring my first amendment right to speak about the second amendment or even to post "inflammatory views", we all lose. Is it really my problem that someone lacks the self control to ignore trolling? Or to stay out of a thread with a topic that they have consistently and emphatically attacked and consequently derailed?
I agree that it may be time for a separate forum however I don't think the delineation is clear. Topics about firearms, such as recommendations or repair questions belong in General conversation. If you want to debate gun control, that goes in The Tailpipe. The separation is clear one is a lawful, legal object whose ownership is protected by the constitution, the second is a political topic. Inflammatory issues that are political in nature, such as gun control, welfare reform, universal health care, the fiscal cliff, etc. are all political debates. Posting suggestions for a self defense weapon or what new toy you just got, should go in General Conversation. Hold those who shit in threads they are "offended by" accountable for their actions. To that end I'd have to agree with idsbeaker, giving into the "bullies" and moving threads that they find offensive, does absolutely nothing to fix the problem, it only encourages it further.
Put that in your tailpipe.
Let me try to get you some more accurate information, you seem to be mistaken about a few things. First, nothing that I’m aware of was deleted or “censored” in that thread by forum management in any way. If people edited stuff out of their own posts, that’s their business, but I don’t think even that happened.slimdevil27 wrote:Even as misinformed and intentionally offensive as I found them, I still don't think they should have been deleted or censored. As I've stated before, I really don't care if someone is offended by my views.
Or did you intentionally state misinformation in an attempt to offend me? If so, trolls aren’t cool and I would ask that you please not engage in that sort of activity. Don’t create extra drama for your own amusement or try to fabricate an issue where there isn’t one.
If you believe this is solely about the Second Amendment, you are as mistaken as Chris was when he said these proposals were a “knee jerk reaction” to recent events.slimdevil27 wrote:Unfortunately, due to the topic that started this it is hard not to see this new secret forum as a way to marginalize, segregate and hide those that stand firm in their belief of the second amendment.
You also seem to be unclear or uneducated about certain aspects of your Constitutional rights. The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this space. You are a guest in someone’s house while here. If your uncle/sister/friend doesn’t want you talking about abortion, gun rights, or religion in their house, they have the right to ask that you not discuss them there. If you ignore or violate that request, they have the right to make you leave and not invite you back. The same basic concept applies here, but I’m trying to find a way to allow as many people with clearly different base ideologies to co-exist as peacefully as might be possible. I don’t like it when I have to kick people out of this house, and I’m generally reluctant to do it.
It’s a bit of a sociologic experiment. Success isn’t guaranteed but I think the odds are much better than decent for success. If I didn’t personally believe that it might work I wouldn’t have done some research on implementation possibilities, taken the time to write it all up and propose it, and subjected myself to what comes after.
You claim that the delineation for what goes in which sub-forum isn’t clear, then go on to describe exactly where each thread of a particular variety belongs with accurate placement of specific examples. It seems you understand the concept of what goes where pretty clearly, so I don’t understand your claimed confusion. Part of the new sub-forum and newly written policies is dealing more aggressively with the “thread crappers” you describe. They may be separate proposals, but they work together.slimdevil27 wrote:I agree that it may be time for a separate forum however I don't think the delineation is clear.
-
slimdevil27
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Nov 12, 2011
- Location: WA
Easy Jeremy, no offense or trolling was meant in anyway. My style of writing was statement based, but not necessarily statement of things as facts if that makes sense.
I misspoke there by insinuating that they were censored or deleted. To my knowledge that did not happen and I'm not accusing anyone of doing that. My apologies for being unclear in that regard. My point was in regards to me being offended does not warrant censorship of his opinion. It came across as a statement of fact when it was meant as an example.
My first amendment is inalienable and I can say whatever, wherever I feel like saying it to the point that it does not infringe on your rights, of privacy for example, or cause quantifiable harm, the shouting "Fire" in a theater argument. You are very correct that you don't need to allow it here, I'm well aware of that fact and have a very thorough understanding of private versus public space and the various ways in which they impact protected rights. My point was that by moving any and all firearm related topics to Tailpipe, it would in effect censor firearm related topics, which is not the intent. Many would probably be offended by that censorship and offended further by the target of that censorship. We all would lose if that happened. The problem is not the topic per se, but self control to ignore trolling or intentional thread crapping. The first is what it is, being offended is a personal problem that should not limit what you or I talk about. By creating a new forum for those issues which are most divisive people are forced to choose whether they expose themselves to being offended. I think that's about all that can be done. The second can be addressed and that's what you are trying to do by reiterating the rules and moving political topics out of GC.
I understand and very much appreciate your efforts. My post was to further clarify, as I understood the intent, and not a way to crap on your efforts. As I have stated I think a sub forum for political topics is over due and all things considered it's the best option.
I don't think it was made clear previously, but I understood the purpose and intent. I was merely pointing out the delineation as I understood it and how I interpreted it would be applied. The reason was clarification so that I could be corrected in my interpretation or some who didn't fully understand the implications or nuances would understand the difference.
Jeremy wrote:Let me try to get you some more accurate information, you seem to be mistaken about a few things. First, nothing that I’m aware of was deleted or “censored” in that thread by forum management in any way. If people edited stuff out of their own posts, that’s their business, but I don’t think even that happened.slimdevil27 wrote:Even as misinformed and intentionally offensive as I found them, I still don't think they should have been deleted or censored. As I've stated before, I really don't care if someone is offended by my views.
Or did you intentionally state misinformation in an attempt to offend me? If so, trolls aren’t cool and I would ask that you please not engage in that sort of activity. Don’t create extra drama for your own amusement or try to fabricate an issue where there isn’t one.
I misspoke there by insinuating that they were censored or deleted. To my knowledge that did not happen and I'm not accusing anyone of doing that. My apologies for being unclear in that regard. My point was in regards to me being offended does not warrant censorship of his opinion. It came across as a statement of fact when it was meant as an example.
We are seeing things from two different perspectives Jeremy. You are on top of the mountain and I'm down in the valley. You have a much broader view from where you are than I do. I'm a casual user of this forum and am not privy to the inner working or long standing issues you have had with ALL politically charged debates. I was merely stating that it might be hard for some to view these changes as not directly related to the recent gun threads. I do understand that it's a much broader issue relating to all political threads in an attempt to clean up GC and still have a place for sometimes heated, divisive debate.Jeremy wrote:If you believe this is solely about the Second Amendment, you are as mistaken as Chris was when he said these proposals were a “knee jerk reaction” to recent events.slimdevil27 wrote:Unfortunately, due to the topic that started this it is hard not to see this new secret forum as a way to marginalize, segregate and hide those that stand firm in their belief of the second amendment.
Jeremy wrote:You also seem to be unclear or uneducated about certain aspects of your Constitutional rights. The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this space. You are a guest in someone’s house while here. If your uncle/sister/friend doesn’t want you talking about abortion, gun rights, or religion in their house, they have the right to ask that you not discuss them there. If you ignore or violate that request, they have the right to make you leave and not invite you back.
My first amendment is inalienable and I can say whatever, wherever I feel like saying it to the point that it does not infringe on your rights, of privacy for example, or cause quantifiable harm, the shouting "Fire" in a theater argument. You are very correct that you don't need to allow it here, I'm well aware of that fact and have a very thorough understanding of private versus public space and the various ways in which they impact protected rights. My point was that by moving any and all firearm related topics to Tailpipe, it would in effect censor firearm related topics, which is not the intent. Many would probably be offended by that censorship and offended further by the target of that censorship. We all would lose if that happened. The problem is not the topic per se, but self control to ignore trolling or intentional thread crapping. The first is what it is, being offended is a personal problem that should not limit what you or I talk about. By creating a new forum for those issues which are most divisive people are forced to choose whether they expose themselves to being offended. I think that's about all that can be done. The second can be addressed and that's what you are trying to do by reiterating the rules and moving political topics out of GC.
Jeremy wrote:The same basic concept applies here, but I’m trying to find a way to allow as many people with clearly different base ideologies to co-exist as peacefully as might be possible. I don’t like it when I have to kick people out of this house, and I’m generally reluctant to do it.
It’s a bit of a sociologic experiment. Success isn’t guaranteed but I think the odds are much better than decent for success. If I didn’t personally believe that it might work I wouldn’t have done some research on implementation possibilities, taken the time to write it all up and propose it, and subjected myself to what comes after.
I understand and very much appreciate your efforts. My post was to further clarify, as I understood the intent, and not a way to crap on your efforts. As I have stated I think a sub forum for political topics is over due and all things considered it's the best option.
Jeremy wrote:You claim that the delineation for what goes in which sub-forum isn’t clear, then go on to describe exactly where each thread of a particular variety belongs with accurate placement of specific examples. It seems you understand the concept of what goes where pretty clearly, so I don’t understand your claimed confusion. Part of the new sub-forum and newly written policies is dealing more aggressively with the “thread crappers” you describe. They may be separate proposals, but they work together.slimdevil27 wrote:I agree that it may be time for a separate forum however I don't think the delineation is clear.
I don't think it was made clear previously, but I understood the purpose and intent. I was merely pointing out the delineation as I understood it and how I interpreted it would be applied. The reason was clarification so that I could be corrected in my interpretation or some who didn't fully understand the implications or nuances would understand the difference.
Booker, i think you may have misunderstood my "boots to the head" reference...booker wrote:ldsbeaker wrote: I say let the "timeouts" and "boots to the head" fly. We don't have anything to hide here. People will get the hint pretty dang quick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFldBVWFgWo
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF6zILkOOc0
And of course...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJaOvFRh_Xo
(No political link, just happen to be the lyrics...)