Discussion Thread for New L&P Rules

[TheBluesMan]

Have at it folks.

The staff feels that it is time to raise the bar. This forum hasn't been much of a "positive face" for gun owners for a long time. We aim to change that, your aim will help.

-Dave

 

[ZeroJunk]

I just started paying attention to this forum and enjoyed some of the testy replies,although I think there was some chain jerking going on.I hope the participants don't become so worried about being completely polite that it becomes dull.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Yeah, I'd agree...I think there is such a thing as too polite when talking politics. People will from time to time say something absolutely moronic, and when they do they really do need to be called on it. Even if "they" is me.

Beyond that, I dunno...I was just going to drive-by and cut and paste something, but that seems like a bad idea now.

Not funny?

 

[Eghad]

sounds fair....

 

[JuanCarlos]

Reading my previous post, I realize that perhaps I gave the impression that I didn't think any new standard was needed. I think there was plenty of room between this forum and the "too polite" that I'm thinking of. I don't think a higher standard would hurt, in fact I think it's a good thing; I just worry (slightly) that it might be taken too far.

We'll see what happens, though. I think with the upcoming election season looming, something was going to have to be done to make sure things don't get too out of hand.

 

[TheBluesMan]

JuanCarlos,

I was thinking that we should all start addressing each other like they do in congress. For example, Eghad should be referred to in the future as "The distinguished and honorable gentleman from the great state of Texas."

Seriously though, I think I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for your input.

-D

 

[Wildalaska]

I like those new rules.

But how do you define "puerile bickering"?. What if a poster takes positions that are not in accord with a moderators own world view, will that be "puerile bickering"? Is it puerile bickering to seek factual or legal bases for outrageous claims?

Seems a little unconstituional (void for vagueness)

I'd like to see a requirement of "put up or shut up". That is, if you advance a controversial position, you had better be able to support same with facts or law instead of blogs.


Wildbutheyimonl&psabbaticaluntilitclearsoutAlaska TM

PS...can we have a blanket ban on conspiracy threads, cop bashing and the like?

PPS..is it safe to come back? My blood pressure is lower now

 

[Bruxley]

I think it is reasonable to ask those that post to not do so unless they are prepared to legitimize and stand by their their assertions. Opinions are obviously just that, opinions, and are legitimate. Declaring something legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, historical fact or a re-write, fascist or democratic, etc. should be substantiated by the poster.

If someone posts something they should be expected to either legitimize it or state their error. Not just fling incendiary or deceptive statements and 'move on' to disrupt another thread.

As for the consequences of such action, a simple moderator post directed to the offender and a PM to ask them to either substantiate or rescind the post in question or else face losing the privilege of continued participation in the forum.

Posts like "the constitution says that there is to be a full time, well trained Army that is subordinate to a part time militia" or "Governments, including the US are the biggest killers of their citizens" should be addressed. Stand by your posts or admit they are incorrect.

To just make things up to cause others to believe a falsehood should be answered IMHO.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Erase it...

It's extremely difficult to talk politics without explaination where my formed opinion comes from...belief of a higher being. I find it hard to define my political opinions as well as generally discussing politics. The start of it all is from the Consitution and the founding fathers' Judeo Christian Philosophy. It seems to be misconstrued as that term means religion. I believe you can't discuss one without discussing the other...

I understand and respect the reason why religion isn't allowed to be discussed. But, I think the direction of Legal and Political displays the perfect example if you did.

My other thought is what about leaving it as a Legal forum that discusses court cases, legal battles in gun cases, and the like?

I'm afraid that the political viewpoints of members are more polarized than the current state of our government. With that, I'm embarrased to be a contributer to that fact. It's one thing to excercise your 1st Amendment. But since this is a private forum I think Rich has the right to shut it down. You may lose a few members in the short run...

However, many more would join if one doesn't feel threatened. I think this is of MAJOR importance to realize.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I'd like to see a requirement of "put up or shut up". That is, if you advance a controversial position, you had better be able to support same with facts or law instead of blogs.

The problem with this, WA, is it won't satisfy the naysayer. I think you, of all others, have experienced this...

You have been called out on providing your findings-of-facts. You posted them. All you got was remarks of not credible site, governments findings aren't good enough, etc. My point is, it won't matter if you posted the color purple. There will be others that will argue that it's yellow when the facts are in front of their faces and the world to see, too.

I'm still leaning on abolishing it. Maybe allow the forum to resserect long AFTER the election cycle. Then again...

 

[Al Norris]

I believe that there were two purposes for which Rich Lucibella instituted the L&P forum.

One was to tie together the many threads that threaten our Liberties and Freedoms. Guns are only a part of those things threatened. To some of you, they may be a huge thing in your lives, to others, they are less important. Regardless, there are other things that would endanger the RKBA, that on the surface have nothing whatsoever to do with the RKBA.

The other reason being that rational discourse on the legal and political topics of the day would show the fence sitters and even those anti's who can be persuaded by logical thought, that we were indeed a group of responsible people. Thus furthering the perception that as responsible gun owners, we are not the stereotypical knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. It would also help to illustrate, to the gun community, that there are more things to stand up for, than just guns.

And with that, take a moment to go back and read the sticky. There's a second post that may provide some clue as to where we are going.

 

[junkpile]

From a different angle

I think many people on L&P also take a holier-than-thou attitude that acts as the flip side of the troll coin. At times one feels that there are something like a dozen people posting on the board who think they're the only doctorate in the room speaking to high school dropouts, or some analogous situation.

Truth be told, I don't think this is handleable by means of a rule, but I do think that this attitude, along with its twin brother of lowbrow bickering. If it were frowned upon as a community, I believe we would prove ourselves in half the battle.

 

[Wildalaska]

Sticky read.... and my comments as to "put up or shut up" are satisfied, especially with respect to conspiriticsmsms (krickey,I cant even say it or spell it)..

I ask again about puerile bickering though...

WildandiguessnomoretinfoilcommentsAlaska TM

 

[Sarge]

I personally think the best arena for these disagreements, aside from a cage with a wash-down drain in the floor, is a totally unmoderated forum.

I'm sure that won't happen here. The closest thing I knew of was the old 'discuss' link at the bottom of Yahoo news articles, and even Yahoo decided that particular little venue had gotten way too ugly. People eventually gravitate to their base component, which make rules of some sort necessary wherever people gather.

The fact remains that we are guests here, under guest rules. All the host is obligated to do is make them plainly understood, and enforce them equally.

 

[Boats]

I find it difficult to fathom why some, or all, of the L&P moderators have bought into the ultraliberal neologism conspiracism.

This term was made up out of whole cloth to create a broader tar brush to use against conservative values.

There is one recurrring topic where likeminded groups of elites do conspire openly against the common good. You might even be familiar with it---it's called gun control.

I can understand not wanting to offend erstwhile liberals, but the vast majority of that particular conspiracy stems from their camp.

I don't understand the wholesale adoption of one of lefty journalism's pseudointellectual insults as part of TFL's moderating policies.

 

[Scott Conklin]

How to shut down a forum in this stage of the 'net: Over-moderate it.

There's another forum out there, about this size...or it was. The political fora has been moderated down recently to the micro-management level. Threads deleted based on whether the topic was "too controversial" or not, etc. So what happened? Pretty much everyone who wanted to talk went elsewhere and the original fora is now inhabited by a few dozen of the same clique. If you like a hundred threads where 20 people all say essentially "HELL YEAH!" to the OP then I guess it's ok...

As for the idea of image, where did anyone come up with the bizarre idea anti's can be swayed at all, especially by dry, clinical debate? Fence-sitters...are there really many of those left? Can the few that are out there be swayed by pixels on a screen, regardless of how "polite" they may be? Doubtful.

TFL's L&P was once a lot more agressive then it is now. It was also a lot more interesting. With that, I'm gradually weaning myself from the internet anyway, since I've recently discovered life is too short, so y'all knock yourselves out.

 

[RedneckFur]

I see many instances of what appears to be comments made just to fuel arguments, and not to actually further a thread. I like the L&P fourm, but I feel that there should be stricter control on those that decide to make a comment in hopes to get a thead they dont like locked.

I'll name no names.... but I've noticed that the majority of these posts come from one small group of posters. Perhaps a freindly warning is in order?

 

[SatanzBountyHunter]

I think the L&P forum is almost like a gossip section in a small town newspaper...you may not admit it, but you love reading it. I know exactly what's brewing when I see xnavy and Pat H on the same thread...yet still have a hard time prediciting how Wild Alaska will comment on it...gotta love it. I always check out the debates and weigh in occassionally...and it is generally opinionated.

Legal and Political debates draw out people's passions for certain things and I think it is inevitable that the conversation will get heated...it sure does in law school and that place is supposed to be civil and academic.

The only way to preserve the integrity of the L&P forum is to make a rule that liberals have a 'read only' version of L&P. I know, I know...I'll shut up now.

 

[wingman]

,I see many instances of what appears to be comments made just to fuel arguments

Agree, in most groups there is a few who want to direct rather than be part of, on this board and others I see the same people try to shut a thread down, simply by posting a statement they know will cause moderators to shut it down. Remove the offenders don't use the shotgun approach to solve a problem.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I see many instances of what appears to be comments made just to fuel arguments, and not to actually further a thread. I like the L&P fourm, but I feel that there should be stricter control on those that decide to make a comment in hopes to get a thead they dont like locked.

I'll name no names.... but I've noticed that the majority of these posts come from one small group of posters. Perhaps a freindly warning is in order?

I'm really sick of seeing this accusation thrown around. In my time here, I've seen maybe two or three posters who I feel confident have actually tried to get a thread shut down (two actually stated it in-thread as their actual intent). Just because somebody's position varies wildly from your own, or what's popular on this forum, does not mean they're trying to get threads shut down. Just because their argumentative style is different from your own, or less refined than most, does not mean they're trying to get a thread shut down. And generally when I hear this accusation leveled, it's the former...sometimes the latter.

By the way, the two people who stated an actual intent to get a thread closed? They weren't on the "liberal" side of things.

Anyway, making such accusations in-thread particularly is every bit as bad as what you're accusing people of.