The heavy-handed moderation is getting ridiculous.

[Redcap]

Seriously?? Edited.
- Joe Link

2. Personal attacks are prohibited.

 

[BillM]

A question for everyone. Say we were to make a private section, with far fewer restrictions, and a 100 post minimum, would it be acceptable to be strict with the rules elsewhere on the site?

100 post minimum AND supporting membership.

 

[jluck]

Supporting membership already buys alot of leeway.

 

[WAYNO]

deleted

 

[etrain16]

A question for everyone. Say we were to make a private section, with far fewer restrictions, and a 100 post minimum, would it be acceptable to be strict with the rules elsewhere on the site?

Personally, I would rather see discussions out in the open - for those that don't like the topic, simply don't read that thread, it's pretty simple. However, if that can't work here, then I do like your solution.

Rules are rules, we all agreed to them when we joined this site. If you want to have a more open section that is ok with me, but the main body of this site doesnt need politics or religion or any of the other stuff that the members who left here wanted to promote

I just want to come here and talk firearms. Maybe even buy or sell a few. That's it. No politics, no religion. Just firearms and the 2A. Add a few videos or range reports and I'm good. I don't see any other reason to be a member of a firearms forum. I also don't believe in social media garbage and I prefer voice over text. And I'm not even 40 so I guess I'm old beyond my years.

Question for both of you - should we shut down every thread that discusses the 2nd Amendment? Cause that's all about politics. You simply can't avoid the subject - you're fooling yourselves if you think you can. And considering how critical politics are to our 2nd Amendment rights, I'd think that's one subject we shouldn't be avoiding. As I said to Joe above, why is it that folks can't just avoid the threads they don't want to read? I belong to several forums, most are much more open about things like politics and religion - those who don't want to read those threads, simply ignore them. Problem solved. I'm as much an advocate of the 1st Amendment as I am the 2nd, I'd like to see folks have a chance to express their various views. I know this is a 'private' forum, not a public place, so the 1st doesn't really apply here, but wouldn't it be nice if we could do that?

I know there have been some trouble makers here in the past, but those folks typically only get that far when people respond to them. Stop feeding their rants and it shuts them down most of the time. I've passed on commenting on plenty of threads I just didn't want to get involved in.

 

[JAFO]

Suggestion: recycle the moderators. Get rid of all of the current moderators and select brand spanking new ones from the participating membership. Those who don't participate on the forums after they are no longer moderators weren't really here for the 'community' anyway. Those who might just be slightly caught up in moderating can relax and just be part of the community until it is their turn again.

The members who have no clue how hard it is to moderate a forum will get one.

 

[aflineman]

Suggestion: recycle the moderators. Get rid of all of the current moderators and select brand spanking new ones from the participating membership. Those who don't participate on the forums after they are no longer moderators weren't really here for the 'community' anyway. Those who might just be slightly caught up in moderating can relax and just be part of the community until it is their turn again.

The members who have no clue how hard it is to moderate a forum will get one.

I like the idea of a rotating moderator. Maybe not all of the moderators, but a few. I know my eyes were opened when I became an admin on another forum.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

As long as no one is hinting at violence towards elected officials or individual members I don't see a problem and would rather see discussion out in the open. ANY attempt to incite violence should be nipped in the bud as that could shut down the whole site.

Open discussion would possibly wake up any gun enthusiast who may not be aware of what we are in danger of losing due to the political and cultural climate. Isn't that a part of why we post?

Private debate would just be preaching to the choir for the most part, and soon become boring or worse morph into the dangerous talk that is better left unsaid. Big Brother is still out there even in a private forum!

 

[elsie]

Another thing to look at is when a thread starts normally (or even slightly controversial) and then eventually runs off the rails with all the vitriol. So what seems to be a perfectly legitimate thread gets shut down because a few people get a burr under their saddle. I've seen it happen on this and many other forums.

 

[etrain16]

As long as no one is hinting at violence towards elected officials or individual members I don't see a problem and would rather see discussion out in the open. ANY attempt to incite violence should be nipped in the bud as that could shut down the whole site.

Open discussion would possibly wake up any gun enthusiast who may not be aware of what we are in danger of losing due to the political and cultural climate. Isn't that a part of why we post?

Private debate would just be preaching to the choir for the most part, and soon become boring or worse morph into the dangerous talk that is better left unsaid. Big Brother is still out there even in a private forum!

Well said. If we can't discuss more than just our side of the issue, how can we keep up with the attacks on our rights? Just because things might get a little heated in the wake of intense discussion seems a poor reason to get rid of them (or hide them) altogether.

 

[oknow]

Personally, I would rather see discussions out in the open - for those that don't like the topic, simply don't read that thread, it's pretty simple. However, if that can't work here, then I do like your solution.





Question for both of you - should we shut down every thread that discusses the 2nd Amendment? Cause that's all about politics. You simply can't avoid the subject - you're fooling yourselves if you think you can. And considering how critical politics are to our 2nd Amendment rights, I'd think that's one subject we shouldn't be avoiding. As I said to Joe above, why is it that folks can't just avoid the threads they don't want to read? I belong to several forums, most are much more open about things like politics and religion - those who don't want to read those threads, simply ignore them. Problem solved. I'm as much an advocate of the 1st Amendment as I am the 2nd, I'd like to see folks have a chance to express their various views. I know this is a 'private' forum, not a public place, so the 1st doesn't really apply here, but wouldn't it be nice if we could do that?

I know there have been some trouble makers here in the past, but those folks typically only get that far when people respond to them. Stop feeding their rants and it shuts them down most of the time. I've passed on commenting on plenty of threads I just didn't want to get involved in.

people do not want to take responsibility for their actions,(ignore the thread)
just another example of how people want to have big brother do things for them.

 

[Joe Link]

100 post minimum AND supporting membership.

While we really appreciate our supporting members, I don't want to restrict this to only those who can donate.

Supporting membership already buys alot of leeway.

Supporting members should not be treated differently than any other member.

Personally, I would rather see discussions out in the open - for those that don't like the topic, simply don't read that thread, it's pretty simple. However, if that can't work here, then I do like your solution.

Question for both of you - should we shut down every thread that discusses the 2nd Amendment? Cause that's all about politics. You simply can't avoid the subject - you're fooling yourselves if you think you can. And considering how critical politics are to our 2nd Amendment rights, I'd think that's one subject we shouldn't be avoiding. As I said to Joe above, why is it that folks can't just avoid the threads they don't want to read? I belong to several forums, most are much more open about things like politics and religion - those who don't want to read those threads, simply ignore them. Problem solved. I'm as much an advocate of the 1st Amendment as I am the 2nd, I'd like to see folks have a chance to express their various views. I know this is a 'private' forum, not a public place, so the 1st doesn't really apply here, but wouldn't it be nice if we could do that?

Having non-firearm political discussion out in the open is not an option for me. The option we might be able to work with is allowing non-firearm political discussion in a private section for established members. The one good argument I've heard for it that is making me consider this is that it would help us build a closer sense of community, and advantage when it comes to fighting for the 2A.

NWFA is about firearms, which is why political 2A discussion is completely acceptable. I've said it before, this is not simply a forum, but a firearm community with political goals. That differentiation really changes everything.

Suggestion: recycle the moderators. Get rid of all of the current moderators and select brand spanking new ones from the participating membership. Those who don't participate on the forums after they are no longer moderators weren't really here for the 'community' anyway. Those who might just be slightly caught up in moderating can relax and just be part of the community until it is their turn again.

The members who have no clue how hard it is to moderate a forum will get one.

I've thought about something like this before, but it's simply not a feasible solution. Just learning the moderator software takes a month or longer, but it really comes down to trust. Most of our moderators have been here a long time, and they are people I have to personally trust with what I consider is my life's work. The courts have rules that moderators may be official representatives of an organization, meaning NWFA could be sued for their actions. The best analogy would be comparing moderators to the police officers of the town of NWFA, charged with keeping order and enforcing the rules. It's unfeasible to recycle your cops, but if one does wrong it should be brought to the attention of the Mayor. I hear a ton of complaining in public but receive very few messages, something that has always surprised me.

As long as no one is hinting at violence towards elected officials or individual members I don't see a problem and would rather see discussion out in the open. ANY attempt to incite violence should be nipped in the bud as that could shut down the whole site.

Open discussion would possibly wake up any gun enthusiast who may not be aware of what we are in danger of losing due to the political and cultural climate. Isn't that a part of why we post?

Private debate would just be preaching to the choir for the most part, and soon become boring or worse morph into the dangerous talk that is better left unsaid. Big Brother is still out there even in a private forum!

Absolutely, any threat of violence will likely get one banned from NWFA. I agree about the open discussion increasing ones activity, which I think would be a benefit of a sort of unrestricted political section, but it's not going to be public because NWFA is not going to be associated with it. If it's posted on our forum and allowed to remain, we're associated with it, period. I agree about the preaching to the choir, I'd much rather go on Democratic Underground or Reddit and debate with those guys than talk to a bunch of people who share my opinion. Throwing the truth in peoples faces usually triggers a defense mechanism and they tune out, much like the effectiveness of a street preacher (very low). You have to be more gentle when trying to change someone's opinion, and that applies to everything political.

Another thing to look at is when a thread starts normally (or even slightly controversial) and then eventually runs off the rails with all the vitriol. So what seems to be a perfectly legitimate thread gets shut down because a few people get a burr under their saddle. I've seen it happen on this and many other forums.

I think it's up to us moderators to make sure threads stay on topic. Often times this requires deleting the posts that ran it off the rails, which upsets people, but it's the only way to preserve the quality on-topic content. I hate deleting whole threads.

Well said. If we can't discuss more than just our side of the issue, how can we keep up with the attacks on our rights? Just because things might get a little heated in the wake of intense discussion seems a poor reason to get rid of them (or hide them) altogether.

You can discuss the pro-gun control side if you'd like, I just don't think it'd be too popular

 

[etrain16]

You can discuss the pro-gun control side if you'd like, I just don't think it'd be too popular

Thanks, but I'll stick with the correct side of the debat. I'm not advocating for the pro-gun control side in any way, in fact I really hate it, I do, however advocate for open discussion, even with those that disagree, assuming it stays civil. I've learned a lot about debating the 'other' side by actually talking to them. It's hard to challenge the enemy if all you know of them comes from sound bites on the evening news.

I understand your position on this, and I'm not arguing it, just stating my point of view. I know not everyone agrees with that - and I'm okay with that.

 

[Joe Link]

Thanks, but I'll stick with the correct side of the debat. I'm not advocating for the pro-gun control side in any way, in fact I really hate it, I do, however advocate for open discussion, even with those that disagree, assuming it stays civil. I've learned a lot about debating the 'other' side by actually talking to them. It's hard to challenge the enemy if all you know of them comes from sound bites on the evening news.

I understand your position on this, and I'm not arguing it, just stating my point of view. I know not everyone agrees with that - and I'm okay with that.

I can't agree more. I welcome anyone to come on NWFA and have a chat with us regarding gun control, the meaning of the 2A, what we can do to solve offensive firearm violence, etc. You can't expect to convince anyone of anything if you aren't willing to sit down and have a civil conversation. I've always had this mindset, and it's one of the reasons I was accused of 'welcoming leftists, communists, etc.' by the folks who left to start the other site.

In my opinion, having open an honest discussions with those who oppose you politically cannot result in a negative outcome. Maybe you didn't learn anything new and just got a little practice explaining your position. Maybe the person introduced you to some new ideas or a new way of thinking. Maybe you were clearly unable to defend your position and need to strengthen your weaknesses in that regard. All positive outcomes.

 

[etrain16]

I can't agree more. I welcome anyone to come on NWFA and have a chat with us regarding gun control, the meaning of the 2A, what we can do to solve offensive firearm violence, etc. You can't expect to convince anyone of anything if you aren't willing to sit down and have a civil conversation. I've always had this mindset, and it's one of the reasons I was accused of 'welcoming leftists, communists, etc.' by the folks who left to start the other site.

In my opinion, having open an honest discussions with those who oppose you politically cannot result in a negative outcome. Maybe you didn't learn anything new and just got a little practice explaining your position. Maybe the person introduced you to some new ideas or a new way of thinking. Maybe you were clearly unable to defend your position and need to strengthen your weaknesses in that regard. All positive outcomes.

Well said, Joe.

 

[Will]

I've been a member for awhile and have to say one of the nice things about here is you don't have to wade through a ton of other stuff to find info on firearms. I tend to read more than I write here as there is a lot of good post and that is a reflection of the members that find a forum like this fits there need. Most forums evolve in time and many spin out of control because they lose sight of why they were started in the first place. Trying to make this forum fit the needs of everyone would be like trying to make your local gun shop into Walmart, you don't complain that you can't get tires or a TV at your local gun shop, you know there are place to go get those items, likely better equipped to get you what you need . There are so many forums to discuss politics and other subjects.

I have been a Mod on a firearms forum and on a car forums in all cases it was far more work than expected. Sometimes you end up policing more than you get to enjoy the forum when things go south due to a few members that agreed to the rules but latter think the rules are unfair. I've also been on forums that the rules were not to my liking and I PM the mods to discuss, if I couldn't get them to see my view I just didn't visit that site anymore. I get it there house there rules, many more places to spend my interweb time.

 

[wichaka]

@wichaka -
I believe in most cases on NWFA we do that. But what do you define as 'religion'?

If I need to define religion, that there would what we in the LE biz call a clue.
I other words, leave folks personal beliefs out of it.

 

[RicInOR]

@wichaka

The reason I ask and I am a veteran of a couple different religious wars.
Vi -vs- Emacs may no longer be in the headlines, but it rages on.

My view is that religion is a dogmatic hanging on to a position.
Is the 9mm better or worse than 45 ACP?
A Glock superior to an 1911.

No matter what you argue, these never end.

When I see one of those threads, I might just post the popcorn.

 

[Siglvr]

Joe said

"which is why political 2A discussion is completely acceptable. "

Absolutely NOT TRUE Joe. I posted about the only Presidential candidate who was 2nd amendment supporter (Gary Johnson), with his statement of such and links to his web site that said it, plus actual voting record of the same, then listed Obama and Romneys voting record with links to news stories where their record contradicted their statements regarding gun control. (Romney had signed an assault weapons bill for his state for example, I had a link to the text of said bill). I thought it would be good discussion. My post was deleted and I was warned in very clear and uncertain terms to NOT post political things, ever. I'd tell you what I think about that, but the word bubblegum would come up more than once. Which is another bullbubblegum thing, subbing the word bubblegum: many of us forum members were vets and feel it's hateful and despicable to see common terms of emphasis now become the word bubblegum, because the word bubblegum - say to describe a new political bill, ie, that bill is total bubblegum, and the word bubblegumhead, as in that bubblegumhead voted for that bubblegum: should mean different things as they are clearly not the same things. Words are important to some of us.

So sorry, but you may think that claim you make above is true, but the rest of us know it has been otherwise. Perhaps you can revise that statement to read

"political 2A discussion is completely acceptable NOW"

Good luck going forward.

 

[Joe Link]

Joe said

Absolutely NOT TRUE Joe. I posted about the only Presidential candidate who was 2nd amendment supporter (Gary Johnson), with his statement of such and links to his web site that said it, plus actual voting record of the same, then listed Obama and Romneys voting record with links to news stories where their record contradicted their statements regarding gun control. (Romney had signed an assault weapons bill for his state for example, I had a link to the text of said bill). I thought it would be good discussion. My post was deleted and I was warned in very clear and uncertain terms to NOT post political things, ever. I'd tell you what I think about that, but the word bubblegum would come up more than once. Which is another bullbubblegum thing, subbing the word bubblegum: many of us forum members were vets and feel it's hateful and despicable to see common terms of emphasis now become the word bubblegum, because the word bubblegum - say to describe a new political bill, ie, that bill is total bubblegum, and the word bubblegumhead, as in that bubblegumhead voted for that bubblegum: should mean different things as they are clearly not the same things. Words are important to some of us.

So sorry, but you may think that claim you make above is true, but the rest of us know it has been otherwise. Perhaps you can revise that statement to read

Good luck going forward.

Thanks @billcoe.

I'm certainly not saying we haven't made mistakes in the past, and we'll continue to learn, grow, and improve as this site matures and we gain experience finding a balance.

I'm standing by my opinion that profanity is unprofessional, and certainly not required to convey one's point.