Discussion about the 2A Forum changes

Wambli SkaWambli Ska ModeratorPosts: 27,076 Senior Member
After careful consideration in the Mod Cave we decided to have an open forum discussion with the members about the 2A/Political Forum changes we made last week so the Administrator can weigh opinions and make a final decision on the future of that specific forum.

To be transparent with the members the challenges on our side to moderate a political discussions forum seem almost insurmountable. It matters not which way our decisions go, someone will not be happy, and quite frankly it has become way too much work for whatever benefit a very small group of members that seem to frequent the forum (some almost exclusively) might get out of this venue.

We strive to keep a friendly, informative and family oriented environment that is inviting to new members while allowing the personalities and knowledge of the senior members to be expresed with a reasonable level of freedom. Unfortunately the threads in the 2A/Political Forum tend by their nature to be contentious, polarizing and inflammatory.

The biggest issues are:

- Threads get rather emotional and personal insults are exchanged freely.
- Plenty of demeaning and condescending writing is posted on threads.
- Groups like LE agencies get persecuted in baseless blanket accusations and there is plenty of tinfoil hattery going on.
- I have heard it said that what happens in the 2A forum stays in the 2A forum but that is absolutely not true. Negative emotions often get carried on to other forums.
- Sexist and racist comments frequently get thrown into the mix.
- And overall as a group we seem to forget that we are holding discussions that are open to reading and interpretation to the whole WWW on a global scale. So without the benefit of personally knowing the author of some posts (as many here enjoy), some of the written words here when taken at just face value are rather subversive, violent and probably attract the wrong type of attention AND give the wrong impression of this group/site as a whole.

So now that you see our side of the coin, we'd like to hear your opinion(s) on the matter.
Basic rules for posts on this thread are as follow:

1- This discussion must stay civilized and the points should be meaningful.
2- ABSOLUTELY no personal attacks or name calling.
3- The final decision belongs to the site administrator and is final.

Any post deemed outside of these parameters will be immediately moderated. With all this in mind, we would like to hear your input on whether or not we should have a political forum.
"Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
«134

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    Rather than go back to the Caspar Milquetoast format that Dan Johnson enforced, why not just shut it down altogether?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,076 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Rather than go back to the Caspar Milquetoast format that Dan Johnson enforced, why not just shut it down altogether?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
    That is a fair point and has been discussed as an option. But would that not be akin to accepting that as a group we are just incapable of reasonably civilized political discussions?

    And by the way this response is just meant to elicit deeper discussion and should not be construed as me expressing a preference either way. We are trying to keep an open mind on this subject.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,725 Senior Member
    Accepting or admitting?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,076 Senior Member
    Accepting or admitting?
    Both I think.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,663 Senior Member
    I for one would like to see the old 2A section return, but without all the hostility. Back in 2008 when I joined here, the name-calling and belittling was much more rampant. That calmed down for a while, but lately has returned. I suggest having a 3-strike system. 1st violation gets a warning, 2nd violation gets a much more stern warning, perhaps a suspension for a week or two, 3rd one....out. My observations are that some people get the boot much easier than others. We need a system that applies to everyone the same.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,725 Senior Member
    Remember what I said in the "Smart Gun Hacked" thread?

    Respectfully, there's no debate here. Just two sides espousing their beliefs without being willing to really, honestly consider the points of the other side, oftentimes discounting data from the other side and at the same time holding their own support sacrosanct.

    To be honest with you and other folks here, many of the "discussions" on this forum aren't discussions: neither side really considers what the other is saying except with the intent of "how can I prove them wrong." We, as a society, no longer debate or discuss. We just argue. It's funny that folks think that information can combat disinformation, when nowadays most folks conflate information with opinion, giving them equal weight with no distinction.


    True in politics, too. True in a lot of stuff. Question is, how do folks deal with it? Some hold grudges, others shrug their shoulders and go on, and still others avoid getting into the debate. You're not going to change human nature. So do you avoid the issue either by limiting all discussion or shutting out certain people, do you actively police the speech to keep out the more offensive/demeaning/condescending stuff that BOTH SIDES of each argument get into, or do you allow the free-for-all? The first is easiest logistically, the last is the least likely to happen, and the second.... the second looks like it would take a lot of work.

    Yeah, the moderators agreed to do the job, but if we don't have them around, what do you think will happen to the forum?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,198 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »

    And by the way this response is just meant to elicit deeper discussion and should not be construed as me expressing a preference either way. We are trying to keep an open mind on this subject.

    Buy this man a beer or three! I'd actually written a reply to Teach' post, but cancelled it prior to posting because this shouldn't be a moderator dominated thread. This thread is really intended to help us (mods and admin) figure out where we go from here. Whether a mod replies to your post or not means nothing. Believe me...all posts in this thread will be carefully read and appreciated for their content. Whether you get a reply or not.

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,725 Senior Member
    I for one would like to see the old 2A section return, but without all the hostility. Back in 2008 when I joined here, the name-calling and belittling was much more rampant. That calmed down for a while, but lately has returned. I suggest having a 3-strike system. 1st violation gets a warning, 2nd violation gets a much more stern warning, perhaps a suspension for a week or two, 3rd one....out. My observations are that some people get the boot much easier than others. We need a system that applies to everyone the same.
    2008... election year.... hmmm. I think you've got a good idea with the 3-strike system. However, I don't know how easy it would be to keep things up logistically. That's for the mods and admins to answer.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • wizard78wizard78 Senior Member Posts: 995 Senior Member
    I help administrate a forum that can only be read by members. The internet "public" can only see a generic part of it. Why not make the political/second amendment forum private to only members. You of course still have to moderate, warn, and give "time out" for a week, month or ban according to the members abusive behavior but would stop exposure to the "www" and keep things amongst ourselves.
    "Those who would disrespect our flag have never been handed a folded one."

    .

    “If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry!"

  • roadkingroadking Senior Member Posts: 3,056 Senior Member
    wizard78 wrote: »
    I help administrate a forum that can only be read by members. The internet "public" can only see a generic part of it. Why not make the political/second amendment forum private to only members. You of course still have to moderate, warn, and give "time out" for a week, month or ban according to the members abusive behavior but would stop exposure to the "www" and keep things amongst ourselves.

    +1

    I had posted that private sub-forum for logged in member only option prior to the wiping of the thread.
    Support your local Scouts!
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,076 Senior Member
    Linefinder wrote: »
    Buy this man a beer or three! I'd actually written a reply to Teach' post, but cancelled it prior to posting because this shouldn't be a moderator dominated thread. This thread is really intended to help us (mods and admin) figure out where we go from here. Whether a mod replies to your post or not means nothing. Believe me...all posts in this thread will be carefully read and appreciated for their content. Whether you get a reply or not.

    Mike

    Exactly! We don't all have to agree on anything but one point. We love it here and want to continue having a place to call our internet home that we will all enjoy.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,255 Senior Member
    wizard78 wrote: »
    I help administrate a forum that can only be read by members. The internet "public" can only see a generic part of it. Why not make the political/second amendment forum private to only members. You of course still have to moderate, warn, and give "time out" for a week, month or ban according to the members abusive behavior but would stop exposure to the "www" and keep things amongst ourselves.

    It's not that complex to become a member here and there are quite a few members that read threads but never post and hiding bad behavior from the general public doesn't eliminate the bad behavior.
    I'm alright with political discussions having to be firearm related.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,056 Senior Member
    I kind of liked having the political forum around, most of the time. I read a bunch of linked articles there that I would otherwise miss altogether. Mainly because I would rather get beat with a rubber hose than sit and watch FOX News.

    On the other hand at least a third of the posts were either complete garbage or the same crap reworded seven different ways.

    I kind of lean towards leave it gone. The same old JBT and tin foil hat threads along with the gigantic proportions of butt hurt it had become looked like the opposite side of a liberal forum.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 17,762 Senior Member
    I can't say I miss it.
    Wasn't a huge contributor too it, and that probably won't change if it returns.

    For the most part, I knew before I opened any particular thread that "group X" would be rallying support for their side of the issue, and "group Y" would be responding similarly and before it reached page 2 one side would be belittling the other back and forth ad nauseum
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,725 Senior Member
    No matter what....

    b3756781cdf58c3987ac857d5a7db7c2--far-side-cartoons-far-side-comics.jpg
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,254 Senior Member
    I made a thoughtful reply a few days back on the previous thread. 10 minutes later, my reply was deleted (along with the rest of them) and the thread was locked. I will agree that the 2A forum was out of hand and something needed to be done, but the way it was handled was ham-fisted and disrespectful to all the members that have taken the time and effort to make thoughtful contributions over the years-- the same way that thread was dealt with.

    Not my house, not my rules but this house was built with the contributions of its members. I question the wisdom of showing that much contempt toward its contributors. I guess you can put me down as butthurt.
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    Politics by nature is inflammatory. This is why specific decorum and procedure are part of legislative process. I doubt that the administration and moderation of such discussions can ever be successfully tempered without diligent oversight.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,131 Senior Member
    I got burned out on it and pulled out on my own accord. Almost went back a couple times. I hate to see the option of posting there gone forever, though. A lot of things are happening politically here in the USA and abroad that are worth discussing albeit in a CIVIL manner. If we as a forum community can really try hard at that and police each other, maybe it is worth a try to keep it active.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,132 Senior Member
    Accepting or admitting?

    For my point of view, if you accept something, without an argument that is, you are either weak in your resolve or you admit to agreeing with it. I don't know anybody here weak in their resolve. There's different personalities here of course, but from cpj to Ned (Ned does try to avoid a llot of this hooey) everyone of us is strong in our resolve, hence arguments ensue. Not picking on anybody here, just trying to show the diversity of our personalities. cpj is a lot like me in this respect, ain't nobody going to back us down without a word or two coming back at you, nice way of saying that. So that's why I used cpj and Ned. I guess I could have used myself but that wouldn't be no fun!!!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • cpjcpj Senior Member Posts: 38,312 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    I can't say I miss it.
    Wasn't a huge contributor too it, and that probably won't change if it returns.

    For the most part, I knew before I opened any particular thread that "group X" would be rallying support for their side of the issue, and "group Y" would be responding similarly and before it reached page 2 one side would be belittling the other back and forth ad nauseum

    This.
    Some folks will praise ________ NO matter what.
    Some folks will hate _________ NO matter what.
    Some folks will actually offer a differing opinion, OR, offer something other than "he/she/it is a damned libtarded republicrat conservaliberal!"

    Which gets old.
    "I'm here for the guns, hunting, and skirt wearing men."
    Zee
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,725 Senior Member
    What really gets old for me is having a good guess to either what poster was going to post up whatever rebuttal, and the likely content, or what threads would be posted up as "counters" to the other threads on specific subjects, who was going to start said threads, and who was going to answer them.

    Honestly, I was not surprised at what went down with locking out the political commentary. I'm just surprised it didn't happen back in October or November of 2016.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 1,286 Senior Member
    Like the old saying there's never any winners in politics or religion discussions. I tend to stay out of the political forum debates. I like the three strikes rule but would add everyone starts out with one strike against them.
    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,132 Senior Member
    wizard78 wrote: »
    I help administrate a forum that can only be read by members. The internet "public" can only see a generic part of it. Why not make the political/second amendment forum private to only members. You of course still have to moderate, warn, and give "time out" for a week, month or ban according to the members abusive behavior but would stop exposure to the "www" and keep things amongst ourselves.

    You mean kinda like a place that is like the PM section where now only two people see what's being said, but in your proposed section all logged in members can see. This could be a place where all the stops are pulled both language and content. It would in effect be a private forum. I would also add that newbies can't go there until they've been here and logged in and discussed several threads for say two months or so blessed by the mods. That would prevent or at least keep down the possibility of spammers coming in here and using black mail to advertise and use the forum for things not now permitted. Just my thought. But I'm liking this idea.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,132 Senior Member
    Jeff in TX wrote: »
    Like the old saying there's never any winners in politics or religion discussions. I tend to stay out of the political forum debates. I like the three strikes rule but would add everyone starts out with one strike against them.


    I can appreciate your opinion Jeff, but there's more than one type personality here. In my opinon the old Anything a person gets real pleasure out of is more important to them than to people that don't get that pleasure from. I am for such a forum because I am interested in it. It was as much a part of this forum as any other sub topic. However, we would really be well served if the rules for it had been tightened up a bit. We should never be allowed to call other forum members names and lose our temper. We should be required to only state our opinions and move on or at least keep arguments civil (Yeah I know, a pain in the ass for the Mods). Now before somebody throws a boulder at me and says "you're one of the worst offenders I will say I realize that. But I'm also like a smart dog who can be house broken rather fast. To be honest I did what I did because I figured I could get away with it, just like the rest of us. We as humans will push the envelop to the max if permitted. If a mod had told me, "You call Alpha a libtard again, you're outta here" I would have followed his "ADVICE" immediately, LOL! If it comes down to follow the rules or get banned, I'll follow the rules.

    And I do contest that old saying, "there's never any winners in politics or religion discussions." Sometimes if an idea is presented well, it can sway opinions. Most of the time that arguments don't change opinions is because the ideas are presented poorly. Hollering and throwing things is no way to convince people. It's kinda like Knite Poets sigline.

    Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!!!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 17,762 Senior Member
    Snake, you're replies are EXACTLY what I am talking about.

    Wambli started this thread asking for member's opinions. Someone posted one different than yours so you think you HAVE to start defending your position. :roll:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 16,939 Senior Member
    I really didn't see a whole lot amiss with the discussions that were going on - but that's me. Yea, I personally brought up the "police close ranks" argument several times in "that thread" (which I wouldn't have considered "political" anyway) because that is exactly what I've seen in at least 2 instances. I also "tried" to express that in general I respect and admire police officers as a group, blah, blah, blah. :blah: Yes, the "usual suspects" formed lines on either side of the issue with the "usual arguments" - SO WHAT?

    For those who don't like the political discussions, stay out of the kitchen! I enjoyed them, I've learned A WHOLE LOT from them over the years - and have even changed my mind about several things - as well as getting educated in general. This forum is about the only place I've found where such things are discussed on a regular basis in an even semi-"civilized" manner. Yea, people are going to get emotional - deal (with it) or clear (out of the political forum).

    Like Jerm, I thought the shutdown was pretty much a "slap in the face" - it came across as completely arbitrary and completely out of the blue. Like several others, it also comes across to me as PC and "safe space" motivated. I'm now suspecting that the primary offender was the police thread - since it has been brought up - and that wasn't really "politics" per se. *shrug* I certainly don't want this forum to become like a certain other firearms forum where you're banned for simple disagreements with the people who run the place's philosophies.

    Here's yet another free suggestion that is worth what was paid for it: Have two different "new posts" buttons - one with, and one without the open politics forum. "Members only" may be a good idea as well.

    Thank you to the mod team for bringing this up. Whatever is decided, I'll feel a whole lot better about it because "the collective you" are willing to listen! :worthy:
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    My Karma ran over your Dogma!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,132 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I really didn't see a whole lot amiss with the discussions that were going on - but that's me. Yea, I personally brought up the "police close ranks" argument several times in "that thread" (which I wouldn't have considered "political" anyway) because that is exactly what I've seen in at least 2 instances. I also "tried" to express that in general I respect and admire police officers as a group, blah, blah, blah. :blah: Yes, the "usual suspects" formed lines on either side of the issue with the "usual arguments" - SO WHAT?

    For those who don't like the political discussions, stay out of the kitchen! I enjoyed them, I've learned A WHOLE LOT from them over the years - and have even changed my mind about several things - as well as getting educated in general. This forum is about the only place I've found where such things are discussed on a regular basis in an even semi-"civilized" manner. Yea, people are going to get emotional - deal (with it) or clear (out of the political forum).

    Like Jerm, I thought the shutdown was pretty much a "slap in the face" - it came across as completely arbitrary and completely out of the blue. Like several others, it also comes across to me as PC and "safe space" motivated. I'm now suspecting that the primary offender was the police thread - since it has been brought up - and that wasn't really "politics" per se. *shrug* I certainly don't want this forum to become like a certain other firearms forum where you're banned for simple disagreements with the people who run the place's philosophies.

    Here's yet another free suggestion that is worth what was paid for it: Have two different "new posts" buttons - one with, and one without the open politics forum. "Members only" may be a good idea as well.

    Thank you to the mod team for bringing this up. Whatever is decided, I'll feel a whole lot better about it because "the collective you" are willing to listen! :worthy:

    Yeah whoever brought up the idea of this thread thanks. it makes whatever happens more palatable. At least we're having some say. We at least get to give opinions. I'm still liking the idea of a special place that is hidden from view from the world so to speak. And if this were tried, one more thing needs to be emphasized, that what is said there, stays there. Make violation of that a bannable offense.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,078 Senior Member
    I made my feelings known on the old thread but I guess those are gone now. In short I have no doubt suffered more abuse and both direct and indirect personal attacks than anyone on this forum and I'm still here. We're all adults and should be able to survive other people questioning or challenging our political beliefs on the internet. For those that can't or won't, participation is and always has been completely optional. By and large I felt like that portion of the forum remained remarkably civil overall.

    That said I will abide by whatever the owners and moderators decide. I fully support many of the suggestions already made in this thread if it does become reinstituted in some form.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,132 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Snake, you're replies are EXACTLY what I am talking about.

    Wambli started this thread asking for member's opinions. Someone posted one different than yours so you think you HAVE to start defending your position. :roll:


    Paul sorry if I sounded as such. Didn't mean to. Only stating my opinion. As I realize I'm not the final opinion I only state the way I see it, which is a big part of forum discussion. And I did state my opinion very civil. I consider Jeff a friend here. I only stated my disagreements with what he said. That's discussion. Do we all need to have the same opinion?

    I could have told Earl or cpj or anybody something similar, but Jeff was the last to post above me and his post was on my mind.

    Also, that's what I thought this thread was about, stating our opinion on a political forum.

    My bottom line was I was taking the side of having a political forum. If you or anyone disagrees, by all means state so. Also, if the final decision is to forget about a political forum, I will shut up and obey the forum rules.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,132 Senior Member
    I made my feelings known on the old thread but I guess those are gone now. In short I have no doubt suffered more abuse and both direct and indirect personal attacks than anyone on this forum and I'm still here. We're all adults and should be able to survive other people questioning or challenging our political beliefs on the internet. For those that can't or won't, participation is and always has been completely optional. By and large I felt like that portion of the forum remained remarkably civil overall.

    That said I will abide by whatever the owners and moderators decide. I fully support many of the suggestions already made in this thread if it does become reinstituted in some form.[/QUOTE

    No way I can argue with this! I'm right with you on it.:up:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
«134
This discussion has been closed.