TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
You've summed it up into a tighter package than I ever could have wrapped.BillCA said:
Discussion Thread for New L&P Rules
- Thread starter TheBluesMan
- Start date
- Status
I'd like to offer a few observations, for whatever they are worth:
- It's going to be an extremely contentious election season (I know, they all are, but I think that this one will be up there on the scale). Both major political parties appear to be in complete ideological disarray, thus providing a favorable climate for the strident advocacy of positions otherwise disregarded. However, as the season progresses and those parties solidify their positions and select their candidates, I would imagine that many of those voices will lose much of their audience, and in effect, fade into the same obscurity that usually is the fate of minority and extreme positions.
- With regard to the Paul supporters, they appear to be very web-savvy at the grass roots level, which may explain the bombardment of web fora with their postings. Once Paul is out of the race, however, his adherents should, in theory, lose that momentum and lift their barrage, so to speak.
In brief, I think that some of this is a storm to be weathered. However, that certainly doesn't mean that the hatches shouldn't be closed and the ship secured.
- It's going to be an extremely contentious election season (I know, they all are, but I think that this one will be up there on the scale). Both major political parties appear to be in complete ideological disarray, thus providing a favorable climate for the strident advocacy of positions otherwise disregarded. However, as the season progresses and those parties solidify their positions and select their candidates, I would imagine that many of those voices will lose much of their audience, and in effect, fade into the same obscurity that usually is the fate of minority and extreme positions.
- With regard to the Paul supporters, they appear to be very web-savvy at the grass roots level, which may explain the bombardment of web fora with their postings. Once Paul is out of the race, however, his adherents should, in theory, lose that momentum and lift their barrage, so to speak.
In brief, I think that some of this is a storm to be weathered. However, that certainly doesn't mean that the hatches shouldn't be closed and the ship secured.
Scott Conklin
New member
TheBluesMan said:
To some degree yes, I believe it is impossible to have an honest heated debate without anyone ever biting someone else's head off. I mean, honestly, we're only talking about the future of a nation, the rights we love and the coming quality of life of our decendents. Not like those are charged issues or anything.
Do I enjoy name calling? Frankly it's not an issue to me. Someone who says I am a dense SOB in the middle of a long rant regarding why he disagrees with me is something I simply take in stride, while someone whose every post is laced with invective is simply someone I completely ignore. Likewise, if I am being a biased hate-monger why is it ad hom to tell me I am, in fact, being a biased hate-monger? If the shoe fits...
In the end what it comes down to is that I have loved forums since the first time I logged on the 'net. I've haunted them, modded them, run a few of my own, helped others set theirs up, only been banned from two(THR And FreeConservatives, the latter as the result of a power struggle between Admins which I lost) and I've learned a few things. One of the biggest things is that an over-modded, micro-managed forum dies. An un-modded forum also dies. The best, most lively ones have a certain raw side to them where sometimes things get a little bloody. Those are the ones people gravitate to(Pirate4x4 would be an excellent example) for reasons that seem obvious to me.
One other thing I have learned: People on forums are almost always already firmly decided in their positions. I don't know if I have seen anyone change their position due to debate more than two or three times in ten years. The only people "in play" are the ones you never see. They don't post and most don't even register. They're just all those IP's you see bouncing thru. Of them I'd guess most are simply looking for data to support their own positions, too. The real undecided would have to be a rare bird in politics today and I doubt he or she much cares about how "nice" someone seems to be.
Anyway, I told myself I wasn't going to get into this beyond my original post because I suspect I'll be swarmed with people telling me how wrong I am and, really, I don't have the energy or inclination to argue about it. As such...I'll make one more comment regarding perceptions, specifically "We don't do conspiracy theory at TFL". Really? One man's conspiracy is another's belief system. Let it be, the pixels really don't cost that much, guys.
And with that, I'm going to go pop my meds and get some sleep. Enjoy.
EDIT: Guess I'll throw this in, too: If the signal is to be enhanced, the noise will have to be abated. The problem here is, who defines signal and who defines noise and who says the guy making the definition is right? Frankly what I see here and on numerous other boards is a disconcerting and ever increasing amount of leftist noise and a bizarre desire to "be nice" even when it makes no sense at all. But, again, that's just my opinion.
EDIT II:
Mike Irwin said:
Really? I've been here about as long as you, though I don't seem to have nearly as much to say, and it seems the trend has been a steady one towards more and more control over content, language and views. Maybe you've forgotten what this place was like when we got here, and how much more lively it was?
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
Yeah, I think posts whose sole purpose is namecalling generally don't add much but honestly I think if somebody makes a statement that's particularly erroneous, or bigoted, or just plain stupid it's not necessarily a horrible thing to call them on it. There's (IMO, of course) nothing wrong with calling the messenger an idiot as long as you also address the message. Yeah, you don't want to be doing so in every single post, but here and there it really doesn't hurt. I think honestly that allowing idiots (or hate-mongers, or wacko conspiracy theorists) to go on without being called on it is probably more destructive in the long run than a little name calling.
While it's true we aren't exactly running out of internets, I think part of the problem is that this forum represents what is (unfortunately) a minority whose rights are (unfortunately) in jeopardy in today's society. So we have an incentive to portray gun owners (or rather enthusiasts, since most here take a view on the 2nd amendment that's a little firmer than even many gun owners) in a positive light. Appearing to be a bunch of hate mongers, illiterates, or conspiracy theorists doesn't help that.
Regardless, I do agree with the bulk of what you wrote there.
Well, except this. There's plenty of "rightist" noise as well around here. Some centrist noise as well. Really what tends to happen here is if anybody makes a comment that's a little on the liberal side, he can often expect to get into an argument with about ten guys...some reasonable, some not. Which is one reason why certain topics have actually had to be forbidden here.
Gee, maybe because the people who create and vote for taking away gun rights are pretty much ALWAYS liberal democrats?
You might wanna check the list of consponsors on HR 1022. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D....fifty-one D's. No R's.
Huh. Yeah, I think that might be some well-earned animosity from gun owners towards leftists!
Edited by Antipitas:
Example of puerile bickering and baiting.
JuanCarlos
New member
And my point, it is proven.
Edited by Antipitas:
Edited by Antipitas:
Responding to the bait using One-upmanship
JuanCarlos
New member
The part where it's particularly "righteous?"
Edited by Antipitas:
Edited by Antipitas:
And this is how poeple get banned (should they persist) or threads locked. The discussion at hand should be about the new rules... In a way (certainly not intended by the two antagonists), these four posts serves to illustrate what the Staff are talking about.
Coming from a military family and ex military my self, I can deal with rules!
I can still place a snide remark on target with out any one else becoming concerned.
I have lived in five countries and found if you treat people like people you will be treated like people. Not So Bad Ehhhhh?
No Problems from this end.
I can still place a snide remark on target with out any one else becoming concerned.
I have lived in five countries and found if you treat people like people you will be treated like people. Not So Bad Ehhhhh?
No Problems from this end.
A bit of explanation is called for, I believe.
Normally, whenever one of the staff takes action against someone, it is done behind the scenes and no one knows what exactly was done or to whom.
In the instance above, there was an exchange between two members that encompassed 4 posts. Since this is a discussion of the new rules for the L&P forum, I took the liberty of detailing what was wrong with each post, by leaving a brief note in the post.
I'm sorry to say, but in a thread about the new rules and why they were implemented, these posts actually point out the problem. It's ongoing and even in this thread, of all threads, it occurs. Way too much, if the truth be told.
While leaving those posts may cause some embarrassment for the two members, I think the educative value outweighs the momentary discomfort.
Normally, whenever one of the staff takes action against someone, it is done behind the scenes and no one knows what exactly was done or to whom.
In the instance above, there was an exchange between two members that encompassed 4 posts. Since this is a discussion of the new rules for the L&P forum, I took the liberty of detailing what was wrong with each post, by leaving a brief note in the post.
I'm sorry to say, but in a thread about the new rules and why they were implemented, these posts actually point out the problem. It's ongoing and even in this thread, of all threads, it occurs. Way too much, if the truth be told.
While leaving those posts may cause some embarrassment for the two members, I think the educative value outweighs the momentary discomfort.
RedneckFur
New member
If you think I'm refering to you, Juan Carlos, I'm not. I may not post it, but I agree with alot of your views on goverment and political topics. That said, let me clarify my thoughts.
A good example... people who reply to any thread on Ron Paul with "quick, get out the tin foil hats".... Regardless of how you feel about him, thats childish, at best. Thats not an argumentative style. Its more like throwing a temper tantrum.
Also, I see many examples of a post being picked apart, argued with, and tossed around until its no longer even about the original topic. This is also unessary. I beleive in staying to the point, and on topic.
My views on this have nothing to do with my political openion, the party I support, or how I feel about current events. I honestly dont care if youre conservative or liberal. Its the static I despise. The making noise for the sake of noise itself.
I'm actually very intrested in knowing why you think my post was targeted at people who's openions differ from mine, but because I want to keep this thread on topic, I ask that if you reply, please do so in PM. Thanks
Comment from my experience. I have participated in other forums that are completely dedicated to political affairs. (Like most, I come here first because I am a gun enthusiast). Anyway, I notice that on these dedicated political forums they tend to have less problems with the name calling, personal insults, etc. It seems on these other forums they can maintain a long thread without the immediate descent into insults we sometimes have here. And yes I am talking about sites where both liberal & conservative views are present. So, maybe us gun owners are less civil?... I hope not. Or maybe gun owners are more outspoken and ready to defend their ideas. I don't know, just saying the way it seems to work on other sites. So, I have made a statement without giving a solution. So, now I have done the hard work, all everyone else has to do is find the solution.
Added thought: Discuss the contents of the post...not the poster. This rule seems to work pretty well.
Added thought: Discuss the contents of the post...not the poster. This rule seems to work pretty well.
I was trying to take this thread seriously, but two factors intervened:
One, this place isn't very nasty at all compared to most places I slum on the net, and I'm not just talking about Free Republic. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
Two, who can be serious at all with the vision of WA standing on the couch emoting his post like Jesse Jackson? I'm going to be laughing all day at that one.
One, this place isn't very nasty at all compared to most places I slum on the net, and I'm not just talking about Free Republic. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
Two, who can be serious at all with the vision of WA standing on the couch emoting his post like Jesse Jackson? I'm going to be laughing all day at that one.
I don't see how that can be helped unless you're going to single out that one particular candidate's supporters/ detractors for unfair treatment. This particular candidate has strong supporters and detractors. He's very controversial because he's so different from the other candidates.
I know it gets annoying to have to read his name all the time, but I don't think the rules should change depending on the candidate.
Furthermore, it's pretty rare that a thread is dragged OT intentionally. What I see is somebody mentioning another subject in reference to the original subject in order to illustrate a point (no intent to change the subject), then an opponent will dispute the point by posting a counter argument (again, no intent). At this point, the thread is off-topic despite the fact that nobody meant to drag it there.
Disagree. The Democrats conspire to defeat the Republicans and vice-versa. The social conservatives and neo-conservatives conspire to control the Republican party, while the environmentalists and nanny-state liberals conspire to control the Dems. There is such a group as the log cabin Republicans. There is such a group as the DLC. There are thousands of others from PACs to lobbies to factions.
All conspiring to control national policy.
If I may be so bold, your beef is with the fringey "illuminati" type conspiracy posts (not because they're contentious, but because they reflect poorly on the community). This is compounded by intentional posts aimed at conflating real conspiracies with imaginary ones.
One cannot discuss politics without discussing the conspiracies involved. Indeed, we conspire on this board and there are cliques on this board who conspire against each other. The RP supporters and detractors are just a couple examples.
[edit] I like madmag's suggestion above [/edit]
I still believe that we as members here, and of our society, can and should be able to have discussions, debates and even arguments without name calling. If our believe in any idea is strong enough that we wish to insult people who disagree with us then it should be strong enough for us to use reason and logic to support our points. If not we should look in not out.
If I disagree with someone but my only response at that time will be a personal attack then I should keep it to myself. Just like I should if I was at someone's place of business and talking with a third party about these ideas. Sometimes it's better to say nothing or nothing at the time than to act, as the British say, uncivilized.
Blair
If I disagree with someone but my only response at that time will be a personal attack then I should keep it to myself. Just like I should if I was at someone's place of business and talking with a third party about these ideas. Sometimes it's better to say nothing or nothing at the time than to act, as the British say, uncivilized.
Blair
L&P discussions bring out some really strong feelings. Sometimes, that can make people do nutty things. Yikes.
Common sense a rare commodity it would seem, also I believe we are as
a whole becoming super sensitive to every word spoken and therefore never
Hear the whole truth someone is thinking, for me the Legal/political section
of gun boards serve a useful purpose to see how other gunowners think
about issues ( I read more than post) when I become annoyed with a
thread or post I simply click and move on. If your seeking a perfect polite
society it will not be the internet. Once again don't over moderate and simply
eliminate those who use name calling or foul language.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I've already said that the rolleyes smiley should be eliminated. Seems like a small thing, yes, but no good can possibly come of it, when it is used, as it is 99% of the time, to refer to someone else's post. It can set the tone for sarcasm from then on. Eliminate it.
I think the subject matter should be highly restricted - just MO. If the topic is not DIRECTLY related to a right in the bill of rights, or crime & punishment, or guns and gun laws, or perhaps military & military actions, then it should be off limits, both in general and L&P.
I think the subject matter should be highly restricted - just MO. If the topic is not DIRECTLY related to a right in the bill of rights, or crime & punishment, or guns and gun laws, or perhaps military & military actions, then it should be off limits, both in general and L&P.
- Status