CathyInBlue Shootered??? (Also, what's for breakfast??)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    The 'experiment' was, allegedly, to 'allow' free expression, the free exchange of ideas.

    That didn't happen, as anticipated. There were all sorts of 'cautionary rules' stipulated prior to opening up the topic(s) for discussion. That was an obvious clue that it was never intended to 'allow' members to "have the freedom to express their beliefs", just the appearance of doing so. The results were predictable, and predicted. At least by some.

    The 'experiment' failed, not because of the members that did, in fact, express their beliefs but because those that set forth the 'cautionary rules' weren't really wanting members to have that 'freedom'. Otherwise, 'cautionary rules' wouldn't have been set forth.

    When anyone "opens up the playgound", they should anticipate that the "usual players" will cause the "first dust up". It's known as "pre-planning". Common sense. Therefore, it's not the fault of the 'usual players', as alleged. It is the fault of those who neglected to plan for that obvious circumstance. There was no 'surprise', not when there's prior knowledge that the "usual players" are already present.

    'Management 101'.
    So you're basically saying that CM is either a liar or is stupid for not anticipating that people can't play by the rules. The only stipulation I saw was "no personal attacks" or attacks on another person's beliefs. Seems pretty simple. Yes, there will always be people who skirt and sometimes tiptoe over the line. It appears that the mods have done a pretty good job of nudging people back on to the right side of the line. In one case sterner measures were required. I applaud the Mod staff for giving this a shot. I think it has, overall, proven to be successful. But I suppose it is just too easy to take shots at them from the cheap seats. Normally I would recommend someone walk a mile in their shoes before complaining. But given the condescending and completely disrespectful nature of your attack I can see that you have no interest in that. If it were up to me....well,.....batter up.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    111,995
    149
    Southside Indy
    The 'experiment' was, allegedly, to 'allow' free expression, the free exchange of ideas.

    That didn't happen, as anticipated. There were all sorts of 'cautionary rules' stipulated prior to opening up the topic(s) for discussion. That was an obvious clue that it was never intended to 'allow' members to "have the freedom to express their beliefs", just the appearance of doing so. The results were predictable, and predicted. At least by some.

    The 'experiment' failed, not because of the members that did, in fact, express their beliefs but because those that set forth the 'cautionary rules' weren't really wanting members to have that 'freedom'. Otherwise, 'cautionary rules' wouldn't have been set forth.

    When anyone "opens up the playgound", they should anticipate that the "usual players" will cause the "first dust up". It's known as "pre-planning". Common sense. Therefore, it's not the fault of the 'usual players', as alleged. It is the fault of those who neglected to plan for that obvious circumstance. There was no 'surprise', not when there's prior knowledge that the "usual players" are already present.

    'Management 101'.

    I think the cautionary rules were both fair and necessary, and I didn't see them as overly restrictive if folks truly wanted to have an opportunity to discuss (not flame, not argue, not degrade) their religious/non-religious views. By and large, I think the overwhelming majority of members participating in the threads have done a very good job of this. I know I've found it enlightening, and it has given me a bit more perspective about people. I would call it a success overall.
     

    oldpink

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2009
    6,660
    63
    Farmland
    I do not envy anyone who moderates a site this large. It's a major pain to do it for a small group where everyone knows each other. temp bans are pretty easy, it's the permanent bans on people you like that are the hardest.

    I'm perma banned from the flat earth society. Oh well :)

    Yep
    To hear some tell it, the mods here get paid for keeping things under control, then even whine about the application of that control when someone inevitably goes out of bounds.
    I've been warned (once) when I called a particularly annoying regular on here a troll.
    Annoying or not, it's definitely out of bounds as per the rules to name-call, and the warning even helpfully mentioned that wording it differently (e.g. "This looks like trolling.") could prevent an infraction in the future.
    If you forget that there is at least a bit of adult supervision instead of a total free-for-all (think the alt.* groups on UseNet), even someone ordinarily popular on a forum can and should get kicked back between the lines.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,307
    113
    Gtown-ish
    The 'experiment' was, allegedly, to 'allow' free expression, the free exchange of ideas.

    That didn't happen, as anticipated. There were all sorts of 'cautionary rules' stipulated prior to opening up the topic(s) for discussion. That was an obvious clue that it was never intended to 'allow' members to "have the freedom to express their beliefs", just the appearance of doing so. The results were predictable, and predicted. At least by some.

    The 'experiment' failed, not because of the members that did, in fact, express their beliefs but because those that set forth the 'cautionary rules' weren't really wanting members to have that 'freedom'. Otherwise, 'cautionary rules' wouldn't have been set forth.

    When anyone "opens up the playgound", they should anticipate that the "usual players" will cause the "first dust up". It's known as "pre-planning". Common sense. Therefore, it's not the fault of the 'usual players', as alleged. It is the fault of those who neglected to plan for that obvious circumstance. There was no 'surprise', not when there's prior knowledge that the "usual players" are already present.

    'Management 101'.
    Who says the experiment failed? A lot of people exchanged a lot of ideas since the rule change. Two people--just 2--were temp banned because they become personal about it. So has no one ever been banned for getting too personal before the rule change?

    Lighten up dude. You act like there was some huge meltdown and an all out melee happened.
     

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    Who says the experiment failed? A lot of people exchanged a lot of ideas since the rule change. Two people--just 2--were temp banned because they become personal about it. So has no one ever been banned for getting too personal before the rule change?

    Lighten up dude. You act like there was some huge meltdown and an all out melee happened.

    I think he's just a little jelly that CM is a mod now and no one asked him to be one. It must be terribly frustrating to firmly believe you are always the smartest guy in the room and nobody else shares that opinion.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,307
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I think he's just a little jelly that CM is a mod now and no one asked him to be one. It must be terribly frustrating to firmly believe you are always the smartest guy in the room and nobody else shares that opinion.
    I think everyone's thinking that. I left it unsaid. But probably better to go ahead and say it. MG would make the best mod ever!
     

    behiggie

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 24, 2011
    59
    8
    Perhaps what MG is trying to say is that when you have a set of rules in place that a given number of people violate on a regular basis, then taking that same set of rules and applying them to a specific subject mater with the understanding that if the rules are broken then we are going to blame the subject, then you are setting yourself up for failure by not accounting for the fact that the same baseline percentage of problems are bound to happen and it is not the fault of what the subject is.

    However I think that if this is what he meant to say then there are much more pleasant ways to get the point across.

    Understand that this is only my thoughts on the subject and according to the wife I am wrong most of the time so it probably means little.

    Oh and I had a bacon egg and cheese muffin, homemade of course.
     

    chezuki

    Human
    Rating - 100%
    50   0   0
    Mar 18, 2009
    34,232
    113
    Behind Bars
    Will someone please change the title of this thread to "Cathyinblue shootered???/What I had for breakfast"?

    It only seems proper at this point. :)
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,307
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Perhaps what MG is trying to say is that when you have a set of rules in place that a given number of people violate on a regular basis, then taking that same set of rules and applying them to a specific subject mater with the understanding that if the rules are broken then we are going to blame the subject, then you are setting yourself up for failure by not accounting for the fact that the same baseline percentage of problems are bound to happen and it is not the fault of what the subject is.

    However I think that if this is what he meant to say then there are much more pleasant ways to get the point across.

    Understand that this is only my thoughts on the subject and according to the wife I am wrong most of the time so it probably means little.

    Oh and I had a bacon egg and cheese muffin, homemade of course.

    I think I may stop in at Panera on the way to work and have an Egg & cheese sandwitch on asiago fuccacia, along with a 12oz cup of hazelnut coffee.
     

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    I got up this morning and realized I was out of milk. I couldn't have my daily bowl of bland flakes. Eeek! So, I had to wait until I came to work and all they had was Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Oh, the things I put up with. :ugh:
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom