Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[lovemachine]

I hate to agree with a 13 year old, but that's not THAT bad of an idea. It would take some stress off the MODS. And upset members wouldn't give them the blame anymore.

 

[Mosinowner]

I hate to agree with a 13 year old,

Excuse me?

 

[Bunnykid68]

They could be picked per offense or they could serve a term. I also think you should have to have 150 post to serve on a jury.

Then we will have the race to 150 posts to serve on a jury comments from everyone

 

[Bunnykid68]

Excuse me?

He said he hates to agree with a 13 year old

 

[lovemachine]

Excuse me?

LOL it was a joke.

 

[Bunnykid68]

LOL it was a joke.

I think he knew that, he seems pretty smart for a youngster

 

[Mosinowner]

LOL it was a joke.

Just making sure

 

[Expat]

I may be wearing 13 yo boxers right now...

 

[lovemachine]

I may be wearing 13 yo boxers right now...

mosinowner's?

 

[Bunnykid68]

mosinowner's?

 

[Mosinowner]

mosinowner's?

We may be straying off topic gentlemen

 

[Mosinowner]

Scutter any input?

 

[GBuck]

So for every reported post, you're going to select a jury? Do you have any idea how many jurors per day would be needed? What about posts that don't get "reported but are obviously a gross violation of the rules?

 

[Mosinowner]

So for every reported post, you're going to select a jury? Do you have any idea how many jurors per day would be needed? What about posts that don't get "reported but are obviously a gross violation of the rules?

We could do the terms that were suggested above. Also if the moderators find a post that is in gross violation of the rules they can skip the jury and administer punishment because the post obviously hurt the community as a whole

 

[Mackey]

The reason this rule is warped is because it necessitates that some people cannot express who they are at their deepest while others have no such restriction.
However, this is a gun forum. There are plenty of places to discuss religion.

But it is always interesting to me, that the same people who would espouse the benefits of our representative republic and / or those who believe in democracy, act like dictators when running a forum.
Some may claim that this conglomeration of ideas from hudreds (thousands) of reguolar visitors/members is "theirs." I'm sure most dictators felt their country was theirs as well and the populace should be happy if they are allowed to live.

Live Long and Prosper

 

[Scutter01]

Scutter any input?

Yes, you've planted an interesting framework, but no details about how it's actually supposed to work. I can tell you that moderation by popular vote is a losing proposition. It does not work. That's why you won't ever find a forum that uses it. Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption that INGO is a democracy. It is not. It's a benevolent dictatorship and the rules are defined by the site owner. I can virtually guarantee that the site owner is not going to hand over enforcement of the rules to the membership at large. There is literally no benefit for him to do that.

But it is always interesting to me, that the same people who would espouse the benefits of our representative republic and / or those who believe in democracy, act like dictators when running a forum.

As long as Fenway owns INGO, he's free to operate it in any fashion he chooses. Why should it be otherwise?

 

[esrice]

the same people who would espouse the benefits of our representative republic and / or those who believe in democracy, act like dictators when running a forum.
Some may claim that this conglomeration of ideas from hudreds (thousands) of reguolar visitors/members is "theirs." I'm sure most dictators felt their country was theirs as well and the populace should be happy if they are allowed to live.

I was going to address your misunderstanding of how a forum is operated, but it looks like Scutter01 already did.

Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption that INGO is a democracy. It is not. It's a benevolent dictatorship and the rules are defined by the site owner. I can virtually guarantee that the site owner is not going to hand over enforcement of the rules to the membership at large. There is literally no benefit for him to do that.

 

[Mosinowner]

Yes, you've planted an interesting framework, but no details about how it's actually supposed to work. I can tell you that moderation by popular vote is a losing proposition. It does not work. That's why you won't ever find a forum that uses it. Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption that INGO is a democracy. It is not. It's a benevolent dictatorship and the rules are defined by the site owner. I can virtually guarantee that the site owner is not going to hand over enforcement of the rules to the membership at large. There is literally no benefit for him to do that.



As long as Fenway owns INGO, he's free to operate it in any fashion he chooses. Why should it be otherwise?

True. It sounds like a good idea like paper IMHO, but the mods are doing a fine job right now and change would be to difficult.

 

[Mosinowner]

Also this is the way it would work.

-Member reports post
-Mods PM jury with post content
-Jury send back decision
-Mods take appropriate action

 

[GBuck]

Can we make JUST ONE jury... Say made up of ME, and bring before it the decision to ban Mosinowner?