Announcement The Atmosphere of Northwest Firearms - Changes

[ZigZagZeke]

Here's what I wrote about this whole thing elsewhere. I'll repost it here since it seems relevant to this discussion:

"OK, be patient and you'll eventually see where I'm going with this. I got Joe's message and had to give it some thought before I decided what he was really talking about. I'm a strange bird. I'm an anti-authoritarian who holds strong views from both ends of the political spectrum. I don't even know what to call myself.

I was 18 in 1965. I saw our government at its worst. Remember Kent State? People were dying for free speech and in opposition to a bad war. I was taught in school to honor our constitution and to root for the underdog. That was reinforced in college and law school. In law school I read case after case where the government was constantly trying to exert power that it didn't legally have. I gained an appreciation for legal due process and constitutional protections. I believe in the Bill of Rights, as written, all of it, absolutely. I also believe in fairness in our social policies. People willing to work should be able to get jobs, and at the same time we have an obligation to help people who truly can't provide for themselves.

I think what Joe is getting at, in part, is the very prevalent attitude I see here sometimes that anyone who is not with the very radical right wing on every aspect of every issue is not welcome here. Liberal gun owners are not welcome. People who love guns, but don't believe the stuff posted on survivalist websites, on militia websites, and other extremist websites are insulted, called libtards, and automatically discredited. That polarization drives away people who could contribute to our knowledge base, help combat anti-gun legislation, and generally provide balance to our discourse. If that kind of selective and unwarranted hostility is allowed to continue then NWFA becomes just another right wing whacko site for people with tinfoil hats.

See, it turns out that there are authoritarians on both ends of the political spectrum. The "lifer" redneck Republican drill sergeants from the 1960's were authoritarians, just as the lock-step, fascist, left wing Progressive Democrat activists are now. Their common desire was/is to destroy anyone or anything that allows anti-authoritarianism, better known as personal freedoms. It doesn't matter which end of the political spectrum it comes from. It's destructive, corrosive, and abhorrent. Now don't get me wrong. We do need rules to prevent people from abusing others. But we don't need rules to protect people from themselves. That's not what we should be about. There are certain rights and freedoms that we don't have any right to restrict.

When I disagree with someone on a given subject it doesn't mean they are sub-human or evil. It means that we see things differently. If I think they might have some reasonable and reasoned thoughts to offer on their position then I want to have a discussion with them about that. Maybe I'll educate them, or maybe I'll get educated. When it appears that there's no valid reasoning involved in their position, or that they really don't have anything intelligent to say I use the ignore button, if there's one available.

I think what Joe is asking for is an end to the polarization, and a concentration on what brings all of us here in the first place, a love of firearms. That should come first, and any differences should be explored and discussed with that fact in mind. We love guns. We think they are fun, as well as being tools for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. If that's not why you're here then maybe you shouldn't be here.

So maybe I didn't get it right, or maybe I only got a part of it. That's how I see it anyway. What I would ask of everyone is to step back and do a reality check every once in a while. Do we really believe some of those wild theories posted out there on extremist websites. Do we really go along with the unreasoning hatred expressed nearly everywhere these days towards people who aren't "like us". Are we going for the simple, "feel good" answers, rather than the right answers? Ask yourself, where's the common ground? We need to ask ourselves what can we agree on, rather than what our differences are.

Anger? Yeah, it has it's place, but let's not direct it at each other. Let's save it for those who mindlessly oppose firearms and those who own them."

 

[DuneHopper]

I love the new #1 Rule ............... Perfect !!

 

[JCORD]

Like I told you before Joe, this is your baby, regulate it to how you believe it should be. If people don't like it they can go somewhere else. There are plenty of current and future members that want to see the site operated in the manner in which you have described. I am a pretty conservative person, served my country in the Marine Corps and have my own opinions on the current state and direction of our country yet you will not find one single post or comment about it on this site; this is where I come to read reviews, get updates on deals and find things I may be looking for, not to engage or be engaged in politics. Some of my best friends are as liberal as they come yet we go shooting and hunting often. I will not be a part of anything that I feel I would have to hide from friends or family because I am embarrassed by its content. I look forward to the coming changes and I support you with whatever you need to do to make the site what you want it to be again. Good luck!

 

[slimmer13]

Out of the 30 some odd thousands members, maybe 500 or so ever post in the discussion forums. Out of those 500, maybe 10 or 20 are super politically partisan and only post that stuff.

I would bet if there was a way to auto report every post by members that receive say two warnings for posting non firearms political, these things would get caught early and probably eliminate 99% of the issues.

OTOH rule breakers and malcontents will always be a part of the Internet and can only be dealt with by moderators as they pop up. Rules won't eliminate them, similar to GC laws won't eliminate gun violence.

 

[Joe13]

I think it is a great idea to get feedback from the community here.

Otherwise he would be trying to make assumptions for a lot of people.

Thanks, Joe for giving us the opportunity to give our input before you make all the changes.

 

[etrain16]

Out of the 30 some odd thousands members, maybe 500 or so ever post in the discussion forums. Out of those 500, maybe 10 or 20 are super politically partisan and only post that stuff.

I would bet if there was a way to auto report every post by members that receive say two warnings for posting non firearms political, these things would get caught early and probably eliminate 99% of the issues.

OTOH rule breakers and malcontents will always be a part of the Internet and can only be dealt with by moderators as they pop up. Rules won't eliminate them, similar to GC laws won't eliminate gun violence.

Maybe if we did a BGC on new members first...

Sorry, couldn't help myself. But, I digress.

As for the new rule, I'm good with it in the sense that I really don't care for folks being nasty to each other. It is possible to disagree, even strongly, but still maintain some level of decorum - it's really not that hard.

So long as the new rules don't prevent us from being able to discuss sensitive 2A/anti-2A topics as the need allows, then I'm good to go. And if the political discussion area were relegated to an 'invitation only' or 'by request' area, if for no other reason than to protect newly arriving members, then I'm good with that. Politics is important with regard to guns, considering how incredibly under attack our rights have been these past years. I want to be certain we can still address those issues, even when they're a bit ugly. If that means hiding them in a sub-forum, then so be it. I came here in the first place for the primary reason to keep on top of such things, the rest is obviously a huge bonus. And I'm good with keeping things clean and friendly on the open parts of the forum.

 

[LouisianaMan]

Most of you have seen and read The Atmosphere of Northwest Firearms. My inbox currently holds 376 conversations pertaining to this; an incredible amount of feedback. I've read all of them, and starting today I'm going to do my best to reply to each of them. I appreciate all of you who took the time to write. While reading these conversations over the past few days I've been compiling my thoughts for the purpose of posting them here for public commentary. There has been no 'behind the scenes' discussion among the staff. Though I will be making the final decisions, this involves everyone. Hopefully we can come up with solutions to our issues together.

One of our biggest challenges is making people understand that unlike most internet forums, our goals (which I mention below) are much more important to us than traffic numbers, advertising, etc. Regardless of money I couldn't live with myself if I were running a community that I knew hurt our cause, and right now I believe that's exactly what I'm doing. Getting people to understand that this is a single issue community built for all current and potential gun owners regardless of political party is something I must do. Fact is there are pro-gun Democrats such as Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-OR) and anti-gun Republicans such as Michael Bloomberg (who has been more effective than anyone when it comes to infringing on the 2A). No question, the simplified generalizations so pervasive here and everywhere else are short-sighted, foolish, and irresponsible, doing great damage to our cause in the solidly blue Pacific Northwest.

Our previous attempts at trying to please everyone has resulted in failure (big surprise), so the new plan is to focus on catering to those who share our goals. I would rather have a smaller group working toward these goals than a larger group whose actions reflect that they don't particularly care. I fully expect to lose some people with the changes we're going to make. I fully expect people to whine about heavy handed moderation, though they violated clearly-written rules with which they didn't agree. I fully expect people to complain about NWFA infringing on their 1st amendment right, and I suggest they re-read the constitution. I fully expect people to complain about moderators unfairly targeting conservatives, though they cannot see who was warned or banned and why. I'm fully aware that, for better or worse, I'll have to live with the results of the decisions we make in the coming week. I'm perfectly fine with that, now more than ever.

REITERATION OF OUR GOALS

1. Promote a positive image of gun owners and gun ownership.
   
2. Increase the overall number of gun owners in the Pacific Northwest.
   
3. Educate gun owners to increase knowledge and safety. Educate non-gun owners to increase knowledge and dispel common myths.
4. Provide resources useful to Northwest gun owners, both online and offline.
5. Provide a medium for members to organize pro-2A activist efforts on the grassroots level.

While we do work with 2A political organizations on occasion, our purpose has never included direct political involvement ourselves. Two reasons for this:

1. There are numerous organizations one can join and work within which are focused solely on the political side of the 2A. The line between activism and politics is very thin, with the difference being that activism represents action.
   
2. No way around it, the practice of politics breeds division. Go read the latest email from any of our 2A organizations and see for yourself. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. However, considering our aim of bringing people together and growing our numbers, these are mutually exclusive.

Us trying to serve as yet another 2A political organization does nothing to help our cause, it further divides our resources and organization. Everyone trying to do everything is extremely inefficient and counterproductive. Our strategy, a better strategy, is to focus on specialized goals. One of (if not the) the most important is working to attract new gun owners. Once they've overcome the initial, inherent intimidation of gun ownership and hooked on shooting then they can decide whether they want to get politically involved. Our choice to focus on one aspect, the very first steps in gun ownership, absolutely requires that we maintain a solid, positive image and a welcoming, friendly environment.

I'm not sure who came up with the flawed theory that gun ownership and gun politics cannot be separated - they absolutely can. The use and enjoyment of a right does not automatically involve one in the political fight to protect that right. Right or wrong, participation in that fight is an individual choice. When a group of people all fighting for the same cause attempt to identify which of them are 'more' for their cause it is known as eating their own (#3 below). Unfortunately human nature guarantees that this entirely voluntary habit remains prevalent across the the entire political spectrum.

ISSUES WE NEED TO ADDRESS

1. COMMUNITY TONE/FEEL/FIRST IMPRESSION - I'll go back to the analogy I used in the other thread. If military recruitment began with a war zone tour, how many people would join? How many people aren't joining NWFA in the first place because of what they see? One of the reasons this site has been very successful in the past is due to us being local and welcoming to new people, and us doing our best to provide a helpful, unbiased firearm community. Many have made what will likely be lifelong friends here, despite eventually finding out they had political differences. If those differences were highlighted rather than their shared interest in guns, those friendships likely wouldn't exist. We need to make every effort to focus on the one topic that unites all of us: firearms.
   
   
2. OUR IMAGE - Gun forums in general are a great argument against gun owners and the 2A. Empirical data shows that gun owners are generally law abiding, responsible, quality people. Unfortunately those positive character traits seem to disappear for many once they're in front of a screen. Others are simply so far out of touch that their constant preaching makes us all look like Jerry Fletcher. Even with irrefutable evidence, nobody would believe them because of their reputation. Image is every bit as important as the message one is trying to convey.
   
   
3. CANNIBALISTIC BEHAVIOR - Snubbing and ostracizing others because they're not 'pro-gun enough' is a great way to kill our cause. It's so effective that opposition groups actually use it against us, and we fall for it every time. Who wants to keep company with people who behave like that? In the same way you have to crawl before you can run, it is extremely unlikely for someone to become 100% as-it-was-written pro-gun without being educated in a positive, respectful manner in a non-hostile environment. You will never convince anyone by talking down to them or telling them they're wrong.

CHANGES BEING MADE

1. Rule Updates - Particularly #1
2. Disabled Deleted Post/Thread Placeholder - These serve no good purpose other than to anger people knowing that something was removed. A failed experiment, this is why most other forums don't have them enabled. We will be looking into how we can update our warning system to send a copy of content for which a user was warned.
3. The report button will be moved out of the post control menu to a more convenient location (to be determined).
4. Enforcement of non-2A/RKBA content rule in the Preparedness & Survival section.

POSSIBLE/LIKELY CHANGES

1. Crowd Moderation - We're currently testing a system which will automatically hide a post once it has been reported by members a set number of times. The existing system will still function as normal so moderators can review reports and take further action (or restore the post). The goal with this is to get members more involved in the policing of the site.
2. Legal & Political will be split into two new categories; Laws & Legal for the discussion of current laws and legal issues and Legislation & Activism for the discussion of 2A legislation and activism efforts.
3. Non-firearm political content will be changed to non-2A/RKBA content.
4. Prohibition of news links and chain emails. These carry with them inherent bias and emotion, causing the same in most discussions that takes place.
5. Renaming warnings to reminders. We shouldn't be considering this as we're all adults here, but people act like they're being penalized when they receive a warning. A warning is simply a reminder. The penalty for too many warnings is a vacation, which is actually very rare.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

• How do we create a positive, welcoming environment here?
  
• What do we want peoples' initial impressions of our community to be?
  
• What words do we want people to use to describe our community?
• What words do we not want people to use to describe our community?

BEFORE REPLYING HERE

This thread is for feedback on the possible changes or questions. We are not looking for arguments, opinion, or discussion regarding our strategy. Though these are technically opinions, Northwest Firearms will be operating as though they are facts. You don't have to leave if you don't agree, but you do have to respect our rules.

What we are looking for is ideas on how we can solve these issues as a community. Please take the above into consideration. Thank you for your time.

Joe Link
Northwest Firearms

Hi Joe,
I would like to APPLAUD your efforts unequivocally. Although I look around the forum only occasionally and am from awaaay Down South (i.e. not your core audience), I wanted to take a moment to thank you. The things driving you crazy are exactly the same things that have driven me away from online gun forums by 90-95%, compared with my earlier participation levels. On forums across the country, there's such a strong tendency to put down the new, the young, the eager, and drive them away from guns, shooting, 2A--all of it, I would imagine. Lots of bitterness, rudeness, "fightin' words," crassness of every sort. The snide put-downs...all the things that would make me NEVER refer a new shooter to gun forums as a place to go enjoy learning about shooting sports, self defense, or 2A politics. Counterproductive, for all the reasons you say.
Good luck with your cleanup!

 

[DuneHopper]

Ya know, I have no way of knowing. But I would guess a huge part of Moderators jobs, and warnings come from the result of news sources and political resources more then anything else on this gun site ? I mean absent the place would be pretty easy to monitor and control the peace.
Again I may be wrong but I would say a large amount of issues stems from there.

 

[browntown]

Thumbs up,

I've noticed quite a few posts with negative comments or connotations about "dems" or "libs". That sort of language essentially equates that gun owner's should be republican and any liberal or democrat is going to take our guns or help the government do just that. That may be a real fear. It is one I do not subscribe to, but it does discourage me from commenting on some interesting political discussions as I find myself somewhere in the middle (registered as a libertarian if it matters). "Us and them" mentality is indeed pervasive in online gun communities, and as Joe correctly points out -- it doesn't help the perception of gun owners.

Go ahead and do a forum search for 'dems' or 'libs', it isn't complementary, nor is it conducive to friendly conversation about real issues. You're insulting your neighbors and your fellow gun owners when you use make negative posts like that. Writing off half the population as stupid will never further your goals in the broader conversation.

Many people are single issue voters. I get it. But consider that for many of your fellow gun owners, there might be issues of greater personal importance that would convince one to vote for a "dem" and that doesn't make the voter any less rational than yourself.

Be friendly, it is the Northwest for crying out loud. Say howdy, and share a beer. Leave the harsh political divisions to talk radio.

 

[BanjoGeek]

C'mon folks, let's get behind Joe and keep focused on the preservation of our rights. Keep in mind that the anti's look at this site also and they can see us rippeng each other apart and they take great pleasure in seeing that. Keep things clean, simple and straight to the point, we WILL maintain all the rights guaranteed in the constitution. Thank you to all that have served in the armed forces of the Unites States thus helping to preserve those freedoms. Those bent on taking away our freedoms do not stop at the first one they take. That is only a starting point. Joe Link, you are the "MAN."

 

[MrMcMcClelland]

Most of you have seen and read The Atmosphere of Northwest Firearms. My inbox currently holds 376 conversations pertaining to this; an incredible amount of feedback. I've read all of them, and starting today I'm going to do my best to reply to each of them. I appreciate all of you who took the time to write. While reading these conversations over the past few days I've been compiling my thoughts for the purpose of posting them here for public commentary. There has been no 'behind the scenes' discussion among the staff. Though I will be making the final decisions, this involves everyone. Hopefully we can come up with solutions to our issues together.

One of our biggest challenges is making people understand that unlike most internet forums, our goals (which I mention below) are much more important to us than traffic numbers, advertising, etc. Regardless of money I couldn't live with myself if I were running a community that I knew hurt our cause, and right now I believe that's exactly what I'm doing. Getting people to understand that this is a single issue community built for all current and potential gun owners regardless of political party is something I must do. Fact is there are pro-gun Democrats such as Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-OR) and anti-gun Republicans such as Michael Bloomberg (who has been more effective than anyone when it comes to infringing on the 2A). No question, the simplified generalizations so pervasive here and everywhere else are short-sighted, foolish, and irresponsible, doing great damage to our cause in the solidly blue Pacific Northwest.

Our previous attempts at trying to please everyone has resulted in failure (big surprise), so the new plan is to focus on catering to those who share our goals. I would rather have a smaller group working toward these goals than a larger group whose actions reflect that they don't particularly care. I fully expect to lose some people with the changes we're going to make. I fully expect people to whine about heavy handed moderation, though they violated clearly-written rules with which they didn't agree. I fully expect people to complain about NWFA infringing on their 1st amendment right, and I suggest they re-read the constitution. I fully expect people to complain about moderators unfairly targeting conservatives, though they cannot see who was warned or banned and why. I'm fully aware that, for better or worse, I'll have to live with the results of the decisions we make in the coming week. I'm perfectly fine with that, now more than ever.

REITERATION OF OUR GOALS

1. Promote a positive image of gun owners and gun ownership.
   
2. Increase the overall number of gun owners in the Pacific Northwest.
   
3. Educate gun owners to increase knowledge and safety. Educate non-gun owners to increase knowledge and dispel common myths.
4. Provide resources useful to Northwest gun owners, both online and offline.
5. Provide a medium for members to organize pro-2A activist efforts on the grassroots level.

While we do work with 2A political organizations on occasion, our purpose has never included direct political involvement ourselves. Two reasons for this:

1. There are numerous organizations one can join and work within which are focused solely on the political side of the 2A. The line between activism and politics is very thin, with the difference being that activism represents action.
   
2. No way around it, the practice of politics breeds division. Go read the latest email from any of our 2A organizations and see for yourself. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. However, considering our aim of bringing people together and growing our numbers, these are mutually exclusive.

Us trying to serve as yet another 2A political organization does nothing to help our cause, it further divides our resources and organization. Everyone trying to do everything is extremely inefficient and counterproductive. Our strategy, a better strategy, is to focus on specialized goals. One of (if not the) the most important is working to attract new gun owners. Once they've overcome the initial, inherent intimidation of gun ownership and hooked on shooting then they can decide whether they want to get politically involved. Our choice to focus on one aspect, the very first steps in gun ownership, absolutely requires that we maintain a solid, positive image and a welcoming, friendly environment.

I'm not sure who came up with the flawed theory that gun ownership and gun politics cannot be separated - they absolutely can. The use and enjoyment of a right does not automatically involve one in the political fight to protect that right. Right or wrong, participation in that fight is an individual choice. When a group of people all fighting for the same cause attempt to identify which of them are 'more' for their cause it is known as eating their own (#3 below). Unfortunately human nature guarantees that this entirely voluntary habit remains prevalent across the the entire political spectrum.

ISSUES WE NEED TO ADDRESS

1. COMMUNITY TONE/FEEL/FIRST IMPRESSION - I'll go back to the analogy I used in the other thread. If military recruitment began with a war zone tour, how many people would join? How many people aren't joining NWFA in the first place because of what they see? One of the reasons this site has been very successful in the past is due to us being local and welcoming to new people, and us doing our best to provide a helpful, unbiased firearm community. Many have made what will likely be lifelong friends here, despite eventually finding out they had political differences. If those differences were highlighted rather than their shared interest in guns, those friendships likely wouldn't exist. We need to make every effort to focus on the one topic that unites all of us: firearms.
   
   
2. OUR IMAGE - Gun forums in general are a great argument against gun owners and the 2A. Empirical data shows that gun owners are generally law abiding, responsible, quality people. Unfortunately those positive character traits seem to disappear for many once they're in front of a screen. Others are simply so far out of touch that their constant preaching makes us all look like Jerry Fletcher. Even with irrefutable evidence, nobody would believe them because of their reputation. Image is every bit as important as the message one is trying to convey.
   
   
3. CANNIBALISTIC BEHAVIOR - Snubbing and ostracizing others because they're not 'pro-gun enough' is a great way to kill our cause. It's so effective that opposition groups actually use it against us, and we fall for it every time. Who wants to keep company with people who behave like that? In the same way you have to crawl before you can run, it is extremely unlikely for someone to become 100% as-it-was-written pro-gun without being educated in a positive, respectful manner in a non-hostile environment. You will never convince anyone by talking down to them or telling them they're wrong.

CHANGES BEING MADE

1. Rule Updates - Particularly #1
2. Disabled Deleted Post/Thread Placeholder - These serve no good purpose other than to anger people knowing that something was removed. A failed experiment, this is why most other forums don't have them enabled. We will be looking into how we can update our warning system to send a copy of content for which a user was warned.
3. The report button will be moved out of the post control menu to a more convenient location (to be determined).
4. Enforcement of non-2A/RKBA content rule in the Preparedness & Survival section.

POSSIBLE/LIKELY CHANGES

1. Crowd Moderation - We're currently testing a system which will automatically hide a post once it has been reported by members a set number of times. The existing system will still function as normal so moderators can review reports and take further action (or restore the post). The goal with this is to get members more involved in the policing of the site.
2. Legal & Political will be split into two new categories; Laws & Legal for the discussion of current laws and legal issues and Legislation & Activism for the discussion of 2A legislation and activism efforts.
3. Non-firearm political content will be changed to non-2A/RKBA content.
4. Prohibition of news links and chain emails. These carry with them inherent bias and emotion, causing the same in most discussions that takes place.
5. Renaming warnings to reminders. We shouldn't be considering this as we're all adults here, but people act like they're being penalized when they receive a warning. A warning is simply a reminder. The penalty for too many warnings is a vacation, which is actually very rare.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

• How do we create a positive, welcoming environment here?
  
• What do we want peoples' initial impressions of our community to be?
  
• What words do we want people to use to describe our community?
• What words do we not want people to use to describe our community?

BEFORE REPLYING HERE

This thread is for feedback on the possible changes or questions. We are not looking for arguments, opinion, or discussion regarding our strategy. Though these are technically opinions, Northwest Firearms will be operating as though they are facts. You don't have to leave if you don't agree, but you do have to respect our rules.

What we are looking for is ideas on how we can solve these issues as a community. Please take the above into consideration. Thank you for your time.

Joe Link
Northwest Firearms

I had known about NWFA for sometime before joining. I had been put off by the negative feedback that I'd heard from other shooters, who had told me about the crazy people on here and this was way back in 2013!

I was part of a forum in Virginia who banned political & religious discussion, and anything pertaining to hate speech for reasons much the same.

They also had a filter that blocked keywords.

This got rid of a lot of trouble makers, trolls, out right racists, mysoganists, and at least one self proclaimed christian extremist who used to talk about beating his son for having had a gay friend.

Bad eggs provide ammunition to those who want to hurt shooting, and as the op says who wants to be associated with someone like that.

The result was that the forum became a healthier, and more respectful place for male and female shooters to discuss firearms and shooting sports.The last time I checked that group was doing very well, and making money. Some of the dealers who sponsored that group received positive coverage from the media.

 

[ageingstudent]

I think focusing on educating and welcoming new folks to the shooting sports is a top notch goal. A short story...

When I was young in the 60's and 70's my folks were a mess. I had a horrible childhood nuff said. I wasn't a sports guy I was kinda scrawny. But my highschool had a competitive rifle team and it got me out of the house and into something constructive. Nice instructor taught me a lot about being responsible and self discipline. Then I met an older fella that invited me to shoot trap and skeet out at Tri-county GC. More responsibility and discipline. I owe those guys. Closest thing to a father I had in those days. Do I believe the shooting sports are important? You better believe it. I got a stripe out of basic training just for my weapon qualification scores.

Don't care about political views we all have them. I do care about the 1st and 2nd ammendment. We need more folks willing to defend those with polite discourse, and that means we need more folks in the shooting sports. I can't tell you all how many people I have turned on to shooting that had all kinds of goofy ideas about firearms and shooters.

Quote:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation"

Herbert Spencer

Be good to each other. It's better than the alternative.

Mike

 

[Tilos]

In other forums I frequent, the Mods quickly lock a lot of threads, with a brief reason, when a thread drifts off into Richard Cranium territory.
Locked threads quickly die a peaceful/respectful death.

Giving aggressive members a "time out" could be a helpful tool to quickly end negative input, I've seen it work other places.

I don't even go to the non-tech sub-forums, as they tend to become a dick forest of opinions.
I also use the "people you ignore", on other forums, for members I have found to be just agitators/trolls, and suggest members here do the same.

I would enjoy having a "forums you ignore" feature here, to be able to selectively only see the new posts in forums I frequent.
I've been a member for a while, mostly inactive until recently, as my hobbies change/rotate, and have just returned to shooting.
I have to say, that I have had nothing but a positive experience with the outstanding members here, in my brief return.
Joe: keep up the good work,

 

[Goosebrown]

I think what Joe is doing here is great. We should be bonding and talking about guns. Politics will divide us. Being one community that is friendly and united will do more to convince people on the bubble that we are rational and thoughtful than having all the "facts" on gun control and using them to beat people up.

Honestly, I do that on OTHER forums. I am a well known troll and I like to poop in other people's forums but that should never happen here. No one should ever poop in a forum where they want to spend real time and that is what this forum is best at.

The knowledge, helpfulness and kindness that abounds here should be our hallmark and we should go elsewhere to make political points.

Thanks Joe for grounding us and being square.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

#1, lose the ignore button.
I get it, but there's no common ground found without healthy, fact based debate, it's use in and of itself causes decention among members, especially when used to point out that "I just put him on ignore because" ,, fill in the blank.

#2, Joe, this ones more a question to you sir, how about a meet and greet for pizza and a few suds somewhere besides just NW Ptown?
We have so many members in so many different places/states that perhaps having one say in Bend, one in K falls, Newport, the coast of Washington,, etc.
would be a start, Portland can be and is a long way away from
many of us.
I guarantee you that if you want to create unity there's probably no better way than face to face.
I know that particular (forgive me please) suggestion isn't a rules change or implementation, BUT as a group it would place faces to names, build camaraderie and create that community environment that is inclusive to all members, old and new alike. Just a thought.

 

[dmazur]

One idea about links (stolen from another site...) is to allow links following a paragraph explaining the content and its relevance. No "drive-by" links.

No "hot-linking" of website photos from this site due to possible copyright issues. A photo you took is different.

I generally avoid the sections of a forum which cater to TEOTWAWKI, as this seems to be the hangout of mall ninjas. Preparation for local disaster has to be a valid topic, but when it strays into sedition it ceases to be educational and enters politics.

Encouraging new shooters to join is a current topic at our shooting range. I'll see if any of the ideas can be shared here.

Part of the trouble our range is facing is new shooters who do not want to follow range rules. As every member is a defacto RSO, we have had a few warnings from established to newer. Consequence is loss of membership. We are struggling with this, as some members just leave in a safety situtation rather than put on their "RSO hat" and try a tactful reminder.

This sounds similar to the self-moderating ideas being floated here. Reminders followed by banned status for those who can't play nice.

 

[The Heretic]

We're considering prohibiting links to news articles as they almost always turn political. I don't especially like this idea, but it nonetheless has merit. I think better moderation could fix this.

I think the right kind of news article - where the article is informative - is a good thing. Yes some people post articles that may be inflammatory - and those are usually followed by comments like "this just burns me up".

I think it could be handled by mods.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I just have to disagree in the strongest possible way with @ salmonriverjohn here, the ignore button has made being here even possible for me, filtering out what I consider to be extremely intolerant members whose SOP is to reiterate the dog-and-pony show bumper sticker political jingoism espoused by 24-hour polarized media.

There is just no discussion possible with ideologues, to whom facts make no difference whatsoever. Therefore there's no point in reading the simplistic boilerplate slogans which are not supported by any facts.

It damages my head to have to even deal with it, and the ignore feature eliminates that ridiculous background noise, just as noise-cancelling headphones get rid of useless racket. It''s maybe one of the best features the forum has.

Certainly no one has gotten on my ignore list without really earning it.

 

[Lilhigbee]

So long as the new rules don't prevent us from being able to discuss sensitive 2A/anti-2A topics as the need allows, then I'm good to go. And if the political discussion area were relegated to an 'invitation only' or 'by request' area, if for no other reason than to protect newly arriving members, then I'm good with that. Politics is important with regard to guns, considering how incredibly under attack our rights have been these past years. I want to be certain we can still address those issues, even when they're a bit ugly. If that means hiding them in a sub-forum, then so be it. I came here in the first place for the primary reason to keep on top of such things, the rest is obviously a huge bonus. And I'm good with keeping things clean and friendly on the open parts of the forum.

Etrain16 beat me to it.

Forgive my naivete about running a website/forum but if it is possible to have a place that is strictly opt-in only, fairly long-term members only, no exposure to the outside or to advertisers, political free-for-all, then let those that want that have at it. The political types can have their rock-throwing tantrums if they wish and everyone else is not bothered by it. With the added feature of an Ignore button that only applies to that forum. Maybe that way pretty soon everyone will have all of the people they don't agree with on Ignore and the forum can be deleted for lack of participation.
Opt-in so no one wanders in accidentally. Long-term members to keep out the trolls. No outside exposure to sully NWFA's reputation.
The staff and mod's can have as little to do with it as they want. Sort of a fight club arrangement. You signed in to fight, don't snivel when you get hit.

Personally I like having some of the political information available, but not to the detriment of the site. I can take it or leave it.

Joe, I trust you will do what is right. Good Luck!!

 

[2211]

IN some sense I am not sure I can or should comment to Joe on his forum. But since I was part of the responding folks I will.
For the most part I agree with the tone of "let's all get along" and move to a point where we are working toward our common interest. It would be nice if we had a common ground to work toward, but I think that one's personal biases will always seem strong enough to preclude that. Fairly pessimistic I know.

DO what you will Joe. I read and rarely post for a reason. Political discussion/Comment/Insult will happen even if you ban the posts of others, if on another thread or board. It's all good to me. Besides, to paraphrase what someone said above, the few are posting and the many are reading.

Good luck