Discussion on the new INGO Rules (race/religion and copyright)

[mrjarrell]

I don't want to offend anyone, especially the mods, with such talk, so I'm contemplating the idea of an alternate forum.

The software is free and there are a number of cheap hosting sites out there.
Home of SMF: Free PHP and MySQL forum software

 

[DocGlock86]

Fair Use should be the rule (don't quote the full article, include attribution and links), but if the 80+ lawsuits currently pending against sites like Armed Citizen succeed, it will open the floodgates and many more law firms will see a cash cow and dollar signs. Hopefully those lawsuits will fail and we'll be able to go back to Fair Use. In the meantime, the costs involved in defending against a lawsuit would destroy INGO, whether the site won or lost.

This is what I'm worried about. As of now I don't probably have to much to worry about because in reality we only use a select few sites to pull info off of. But if it begins to snowball and these select few get on board, I'm in deep .

I think it's complete crap. You'd think as long as we put a link back to their site they'd want the "free" advertisement.

I know if I ever got faced with a lawsuit, I'd have to shut the site down because we are completely non profit and I'm a poor poor rich man. There's no way in heck I could afford to hire a lawyer to fight it and/or settle.

 

[Expat]

My worry is that some future thread, like many past threads, will involve my reasons for taking a particular stand, and many if not most of my reasons are religious in nature. I don't want to offend anyone, especially the mods, with such talk, so I'm contemplating the idea of an alternate forum.

There aren't too many current events that you can discuss that don't have some aspect of religion or race. Border security, TSA, Tea Parties, POTUS, SCOTUS etc. all have racial or religious aspects to them.

This was not meant to be critical of the new policy, simply conversing with Fletch on the subject of a possible political forum.

 

[Bendrx]

Bill Of Rights:

I didn't mean to come across supporting racism, my goal or intended message was to point out how heavily our nation relies on something that we can now no longer discuss. The religious aspect was what I was pointing to. I'm all for racist topics banned from being discussed (though no progress can be made that way). While I'll carry on abiding by the rules, it IS very very unAmerican to remove G**. I'm not a religious person, but it's a foundation of our nation. When you attack the foundation you are attacking the whole.

"In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable." -George Washington 1796 Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796 (I think we can still quote George Washington). And in such light, I do fear when people attempt to change the habit of The People.

I haven't taken part in many discussions of the religious/race nature. I have a few, and while there were some hostilities at times, I felt it well within the expected burden of Freedom, and it much less than the burden of servitude. Again, I know this is privately owned by Fenway, and it's just as much his as his car is. I'm grateful that he's sharing this forum with us all over the state and world even. I have no intent in breaking these new rules, and will continute following them as I have always done.


One last thought, couldn't we have just man'd up/woman'd up and used the ingore option when we felt we've been attacked. It's just the internet, and now look at what has happened. We need to all take some more responsability for ourselves and stop whining to Mods because somebody steped on our toes. Disagreement is at the heart of any good discussion. If we all agreed then we wouldn't be here, forums to me are a gathering place for ideas. The closest thing we have today to the real schools of thought from bygone times. Ok, I'll try to stop adding to this post - but it will be hard.

Okay, I failed, another edit, I just keep thinking of things I should have typed the last edit. I offer this up as a thought - as I know it's not up for debate. What if we banned topics of PURE religious content. As in a thread can't be "Who's Cooler: Jesus or Muhamid?", that would allow conversation of a political manner to still happen. There is little in politics that doesn't relate back in some way, shape or form to religion if you take it back far enough".

 

[Jack Ryan]

Seems like it would be easier to say, racism is not ok, you will be banned. Religious Bashing is not ok, you will be banned.

It would be easier to say but it is impossible to enforce.

The reason is the definition of "bashing". People define bashing relative to their own position. If they are recieving then it's bashing, racism, or bigotry. If they are sending then it's just healthy discusion, the truth, exchange of information.

 

[Benny]

It would be easier to say but it is impossible to enforce.

The reason is the definition of "bashing". People define bashing relative to their own position. If they are recieving then it's bashing, racism, or bigotry. If they are sending then it's just healthy discusion, the truth, exchange of information.

I guess this profile/sig will need to be cleaned up a bit.

INGunOwners - View Profile: 360

 

[Sailor]

The only definition that matters is the one the mod believes. You enter a religious discussion at your own risk. Get out of line and your canned, there is no trial, you have no rights on a private forum.

Rather than censor entire topics, get rid of the offenders.

 

[technobear]

i posted this in the wrong section so i figured id duplicate it here.
i have less than 50 posts so im sure what i have to say doesnt mean anything..
but:
admittedly i did not read the article talking about the other site that was closed down.

that being said.

i would think that quoting sections of articles or documents with appropriate credit given should be ok or else every research paper in the country would immediately be subject to litigation. I would think that maybe a lawyer or someone here who is married to a lawyer may, be consulted to the stipulations of what would be considered plagarism or etc..

im sure that once this is properly investigated it will be found that with proper documentation and credit given to authors that maybe the dreaded rule # 2 can be re worded in a way to allow relaying pertinent information from documents written by others..
just my 2c ....


the owner has said no text quoting as an immediate ( and appropriate) reaction to a threat.

my point is that i feel that after some research and verifying that a legal compromise may be found.

and to respond to someone elses statement..

im not crying im not whining i really dont care..

but those are my observations on what could be a very real situation/problem for the admins and owner of ingo.

 

[Jack Ryan]

The only definition that matters is the one the mod believes. You enter a religious discussion at your own risk. Get out of line and your canned, there is no trial, you have no rights on a private forum.

Rather than censor entire topics, get rid of the offenders.

ROTFLMAO, speak of the devil and the perfect example pops up like a fart in the cubicle farm.

Complaining and giving the proof of why your complaint has zero validity in only three sentences.

Can any one do it in two?

 

[VUPDblue]

The rules have been posted. If you have a specific question or need a clarification, please PM a MOD.

The discussion ends here.

I will get in a parting shot though;
We understand that everyone here is a human being and that mistakes will be made. If you accidentally post a full quotation, we will remove it, no hard feelings. We are not here to crucify anyone, rather we are trying to make INGO a place where everyone, regardless of their race/creed/color/religion, can feel welcome. Our goal is to unite gun owners in this great state. If anyone who might otherwise feel comfortable here is turned off because of some content on this site directed toward them based on color/race/creed/religion, then we fail as a site.

Heavy-handedness is not our goal here.

Thanks.