Guns??? A retrospective topic

[Tombs]

Hold your horses. Are you new to the internet or something? There's a very valuable reason for having sections on chatrooms and forums for discussions that you do not want to take part in.

They contain those problems to those sections, along with those types of people.

Once you remove that section, it becomes a constant wack-a-mole problem across every other section of a forum/chatroom.

 

[mmpsteve]

Are you serious. Really. Read THE POST.
It has not a damn thing to do with control. I have gotten a number of PM's text and calls from solid people who have had it.

If you think you are one of those members then maybe you are.
If you are not then you will know that as well.

I often wonder about some of those folks myself.

Control.......

All due respect CM, but the first thing I was told on this site was grow some thick skin. I did that. The people with the PM's , texts and calls, why don't they just avoid the stuff that gives them heartburn? Not trying to be a smartass, and before you hammer me, please check my payment record for my site supporter status. Maybe if people had to pay more to play, it would weed out some of the lightweights.

.

 

[churchmouse]

I get that you may not like the politics and other stuff, but who is making you go there?

Maybe start your own gun forum and not allow it.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK 1 more time.
Maybe you should start your own gun forum.
So before anyone tells him to go elsewhere please read on.........

What is happening here my friends is Ingo is on the verge of loosing this sub-forum. Many members feel as the OP does. I know RR and he is a solid gun enthusiast. Solid.
I have stated it in the open on to many occasions for the regulars not to have seen it.
This year has led to us loosing many solid members and few were my friends. I miss them here. They were solid gun people and the overall demeanor of the site was just not Ingo to them anymore. But politics is part of gun ownership now like it or not. But it would seem that politics is not gun ownership as a lot of the regulars in here never venture out into what this site is supposed to be about. "GUNS" and "GUN" ownership. "NEVER"

I have tried my best to keep the anxiety's in check and those efforts fell short.
When Tex 1st took the site over the political and religious topics were on the block. He has other forums that just do not allow this to be discussed at these levels as freely as we do here. It is just to damned hard to moderate. This has been a hot button in the Mod forum for a while now. Many staff believe as the OP does. Let it go.

I am not one to see it this way. This is a draw to the site. And growth is our goal.
"But".....let things get anywhere close to as silly as in what we have seen recently and it will be done.
I have fought all I intend to. I have bent over backwards to not ban a few that needed to be for the sake of discussion. I trust those members know who they are.

To the nay-sayers.........

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I guess I'm not getting it either. I would understand it if politics was bleeding over into other forums, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have seen some complaints about religion bleeding over into politics threads and that I do understand. This doesn't seem to be that.

 

[KG1]

I say ban politics.

 

[Tombs]

I guess I'm not getting it either. I would understand it if politics was bleeding over into other forums, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have seen some complaints about religion bleeding over into politics threads and that I do understand. This doesn't seem to be that.

I legitimately believe it boils down to people not having much experience with forums and chatrooms online.

If they knew what the alternative looked like, they'd be extremely grateful that containment sections exist.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I say ban politics.

Why? I mean I get that it gets contentious and probably causes some heartburn and headaches for the mods, but as someone mentioned upthread, there are lots of forums here that I have never even gone into, because they don't interest me. Like Shooting Sports for instance. I'm not a competitive shooter, so I have no interest in going there. If one is not into discussing politics, then that's cool. Lots of other areas of discussion to take part in. I must be dense or something because I truly don't understand, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. If there are individuals causing the problems in the political threads, then I would think they could be dealt with on an individual basis.

 

[JettaKnight]

Ronin's point is valid - I can name several members that just don't come around, and I certainly wouldn't describe any of them as thin skinned.


There's COIVD & elections... several hot button issues worth discussing.

But, it's really hard to find that sweet spot between overly restrictive, and becoming a cesspool (a la Facebook, or maybe ARFCOM). I think right now, we're doing a good job at keeping it together (kudos mods). ... last month was kinda touch and go ...




I think of INGO as a sort of home, and many here I call friend, and as such, there's things I want to talk about.

EDIT: What I do find offensive is the, "How dare you express that opinion on a gun forum!" attitude.

 

[Leadeye]

As one who left I'll return briefly, perhaps to salvage something good from all of this. It's a gun forum, with additions. You can argue everything from economic policy to Salma's bra size and there 's nothing wrong with that. Where I drew the line was the support given, the arguments made, and the crowing afterwards on behalf of proven anti-2A candidates in the last election. Our last president is hardly a paragon of 2A virtue, but compares favorably to his competitor in this regard. Anti 2A whatever has no business here, it original sin on a gun board in my opinion and as it's my opinion I just left rather than put up with it as it's still a free country. The decision lies ultimately with the owner of the site as he pays the bills, but there's a lot of places for people like me to go as well.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

I say ban politics.

+1

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I legitimately believe it boils down to people not having much experience with forums and chatrooms online.

If they knew what the alternative looked like, they'd be extremely grateful that containment sections exist.

I used to participate in a political chatroom called "The Boston Teaparty". It was pretty much un-moderated. If anyone thinks it gets rough in our Gen Pol forum, it would be a real eye-opener! Our most adversarial hardcore "arguers" look like choirboys compared to the people in that place.

 

[churchmouse]

All due respect CM, but the first thing I was told on this site was grow some thick skin. I did that. The people with the PM's , texts and calls, why don't they just avoid the stuff that gives them heartburn? Not trying to be a smartass, and before you hammer me, please check my payment record for my site supporter status. Maybe if people had to pay more to play, it would weed out some of the lightweights.

.

No disrespect taken sir. You have always been civil to my knowledge.
If you knew those folks it may be easier for you and others to understand.
Soooooo many conversations over the last few years with folks that just do not come here anymore because of what I speak and it is not just in the political sub-forum.

I guess if you sat in my chair for a while you would see it.

And yes, I am a firm believer in supporting the site and they were all to the man site supporters and not just monetarily.

 

[KLB]

I guess I'm not getting it either. I would understand it if politics was bleeding over into other forums, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have seen some complaints about religion bleeding over into politics threads and that I do understand. This doesn't seem to be that.

I'm just as confused.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

OK 1 more time.
Maybe you should start your own gun forum.
So before anyone tells him to go elsewhere please read on.........

What is happening here my friends is Ingo is on the verge of loosing this sub-forum. Many members feel as the OP does. I know RR and he is a solid gun enthusiast. Solid.
I have stated it in the open on to many occasions for the regulars not to have seen it.
This year has led to us loosing many solid members and few were my friends. I miss them here. They were solid gun people and the overall demeanor of the site was just not Ingo to them anymore. But politics is part of gun ownership now like it or not. But it would seem that politics is not gun ownership as a lot of the regulars in here never venture out into what this site is supposed to be about. "GUNS" and "GUN" ownership. "NEVER"

I have tried my best to keep the anxiety's in check and those efforts fell short.
When Tex 1st took the site over the political and religious topics were on the block. He has other forums that just do not allow this to be discussed at these levels as freely as we do here. It is just to damned hard to moderate. This has been a hot button in the Mod forum for a while now. Many staff believe as the OP does. Let it go.

I am not one to see it this way. This is a draw to the site. And growth is our goal.
"But".....let things get anywhere close to as silly as in what we have seen recently and it will be done.
I have fought all I intend to. I have bent over backwards to not ban a few that needed to be for the sake of discussion. I trust those members know who they are.

To the nay-sayers.........

Thanks for the additional explanation CM!

 

[Tombs]

I used to participate in a political chatroom called "The Boston Teaparty". It was pretty much un-moderated. If anyone thinks it gets rough in our Gen Pol forum, it would be a real eye-opener! Our most adversarial hardcore "arguers" look like choirboys compared to the people in that place.

No kidding, I spend most my time is entirely unmoderated spaces.

If I don't like where the discussion is going, I duck out until it goes somewhere I'm interested in rejoining it, seems to be what mostly everyone else does as well.
I think when you have rules and moderation, you get a lot more people pent up and unloading wildly.
I say this as someone who has moderated various sites and chatrooms for about 20 years, lol.

My suggestion to management is to make a political and religious sub form that is hidden and opt in. Then you can be a lot more lax with the rules in those sections and let members keep it in line or duck out.

 

[churchmouse]

Why? I mean I get that it gets contentious and probably causes some heartburn and headaches for the mods, but as someone mentioned upthread, there are lots of forums here that I have never even gone into, because they don't interest me. Like Shooting Sports for instance. I'm not a competitive shooter, so I have no interest in going there. If one is not into discussing politics, then that's cool. Lots of other areas of discussion to take part in. I must be dense or something because I truly don't understand, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. If there are individuals causing the problems in the political threads, then I would think they could be dealt with on an individual basis.

"Probably".....man you have "NO" idea. None.
I threw up my hands and walked away for a few days just recently and only came back because of the solid friendships I have here.

 

[churchmouse]

As one who left I'll return briefly, perhaps to salvage something good from all of this. It's a gun forum, with additions. You can argue everything from economic policy to Salma's bra size and there 's nothing wrong with that. Where I drew the line was the support given, the arguments made, and the crowing afterwards on behalf of proven anti-2A candidates in the last election. Our last president is hardly a paragon of 2A virtue, but compares favorably to his competitor in this regard. Anti 2A whatever has no business here, it original sin on a gun board in my opinion and as it's my opinion I just left rather than put up with it as it's still a free country. The decision lies ultimately with the owner of the site as he pays the bills, but there's a lot of places for people like me to go as well.

There. Clearly stated.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"Probably".....man you have "NO" idea. None.
I threw up my hands and walked away for a few days just recently and only came back because of the solid friendships I have here.

Okay, "probably" was a poor choice of words. "Definitely" would have been more accurate. I (and I think most of us) appreciate what you do here CM. I know I wouldn't have the patience. I also agree with Leadeye's assessment.

 

[churchmouse]

Okay, "probably" was a poor choice of words. "Definitely" would have been more accurate. I (and I think most of us) appreciate what you do here CM. I know I wouldn't have the patience. I also agree with Leadeye's assessment.

He makes a solid point.
And you are fine DD. No knock on you what soever my friend.

And I truly believe some folks do the soap box preaching against the conservative side of things just to stir

 

[printcraft]

As one who left I'll return briefly, perhaps to salvage something good from all of this. It's a gun forum, with additions. You can argue everything from economic policy to Salma's bra size and there 's nothing wrong with that. Where I drew the line was the support given, the arguments made, and the crowing afterwards on behalf of proven anti-2A candidates in the last election. Our last president is hardly a paragon of 2A virtue, but compares favorably to his competitor in this regard. Anti 2A whatever has no business here, it original sin on a gun board in my opinion and as it's my opinion I just left rather than put up with it as it's still a free country. The decision lies ultimately with the owner of the site as he pays the bills, but there's a lot of places for people like me to go as well.

They don't understand that losing the 2nd puts all others on the table.