~~~ WHO Was Banned Today??? ~~~

[KLB]

The gist of the ban on race and religion is an effort to prevent hurt feelings. Let's face it. That's not going to happen. You can't control how someone is going to respond. Making zero tolerance rules in an effort to do so is an exercise in futility. I don't know why it can't be simplified down to "Don't insult/mock/condemn entire religions or other members for their religious beliefs" and "Don't make blanket statements condemning entire populations based on the actions of a sub-set of that population." And before you argue that it's a subjective standard, I'd bring your attention to the rule that prohibits members from insulting other members. That's subjective. (And I have seen some nasty insults cross my screen.) If INGO can operate on that subject standard, why can't it do the same, with the same moderator discretion for race and religion?

This is an excellent suggestion. Act like an adult, get treated like one.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I felt the same way for most of my tenure here. I never reported offending posts because I thought it was sort of underhanded for one and not needed, second. But I saw the plea from some of the mods for help in the classifieds. They said they couldn't watch them all and would appreciate help. So I flagged a few this past year.

I also began to notice that some people were intentionally goading people to make comments that would get them banned or the thread locked. It was easy to see as a basically disinterested third party but I guess those that were in the heat of battle didn't notice or couldn't contain themselves. That kind of ticked me off to see only one side of some issues getting banned all the time. Because one side was using reporting posts as a tactic to shut down discussion. So Paul said to start reporting those offenders on the other side. So I did one so far.

I hadn't thought of that and I could see that being useful. I'm sure it helps the mods to do their jobs better.

 

[KLB]

Our next ban candidate?
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/longtwo.html

 

[chezuki]

Our next ban candidate?
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2218283

You can't link search results, no one but you can see them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can't link search results, no one but you can see them.

He's right.

He's often late but he's right....this time.

 

[KLB]

You can't link search results, no one but you can see them.

Oops. Fixed

 

[chezuki]

Oops. Fixed

Ah. I guarantee that's not even an actual person. It's a spam-bot.

 

[chezuki]

He's right.

He's often late but he's right....this time.

 

[bradmedic04]

Ah. I guarantee that's not even an actual person. It's a spam-bot.

Spam bots are people too. They deserve the right to marry.

 

[jamil]

First things first. In the politically correct spirit of many sports journalists, I will now only refer to CM as head in protest of this most offensive name.

J/K. I'm not religious but if anyone is offended by the screen name "churchmouse", **** 'em.

Zero tolerance certainly makes the rule making and enforcement easier. But I hate it in real life and I hate it on the web because in either, it's really never "zero tolerance"...there are always those that are allowed to skirt the rule but it's always there to "hammer" the offensive, the non-favored, that "kid nobody likes", when those enforcing the rule decides it's time or complaints become sufficient.

How would I handle it? I would enforce the ever-loving-**** out of it. The rules are the rules. If my screen name now falls on the wrong side of the fence--I'm fine changing it to comply.

Zero tolerance just makes it suck for everyone. Which world is better to live in: a world where no one were ever offended over anything, or a world where nothing that might offend people is allowed? But people just can't get over themselves and tend to get offended. Zero tolerance only encourages more perceived offenses, while telling people to suck it in and quit *****ing tends to grow everyone thicker skin. But whatever. It's not my call.

I used to be " HardRockinGanjaSmokin" now I'm " ProstateFearinLimpDickin"

Just a fact of 50+. Saw Palmetto. It's hit or miss though.

I agree. Zero Tolerance is philosophically untenable. Alternatively, on a pragmatic level we do not have the manpower to design, implement, and maintain a more robust scheme. Those who implemented this policy did not have access to a perfect solution, and decided this was the best way forward. Now we all do the best we can.
Again, I argue that this is primarily an issue within one sub-forum here...not a site-wide issue.


The users know what the rules are, and will operate within them when they know they are being watched. I don't want to be the bad guy every day, and neither does anyone else. We see that our users are capable of operating withing our rules, but often choose not to. Sometimes we have to remind users that we are here, and we are watching. This isn't something any of us want to have to do every day, forever. I don't think the users want that, either.

Sometimes decisions are made and implemented and sometimes they don't work out as you expected. If Zero Tolerance is philosophically untenable, try something else.

You said that the political sub forum is the biggest problem area. Maybe that area needs different rules. I would hate to see it go away. I have changed many of my own political views just from seeing different points discussed there. But in any forum for political discussion people have to have some degree of thick skin. People will debate and sometimes the debate might become pointed. And some subjects are impossible to discuss without involving some of the forbidden themes. The only problem is when people start personal attacks.

Some posts get snarky and I suppose I've dealt out my fair share but when it goes beyond snark into hateful insults and attacks on other members, I think it's fair to pull out the banhammer. I think it's unfair to close threads where some people are participating without resorting to personal insults and attacks, or clear examples of racism. I'd rather see the offending posts deleted.

I think there should be some way you can tell how many posts a given user has reported. Like rep points. That might change how some feel about others. I can see the need to report a post, but that makes me wonder who these people are who are filling the mod's inboxes on a daily basis.

I feel like I'm still a newbie here and I look at my participation on this forum as being like a guest in someone's house. I don't have any feeling of ownership of this forum, and I can't see ever reporting someone for a post, and I really can't say that I've ever felt any satisfaction over hearing about someone being banned (not even TROOPER). But I know rules are rules and I also suspect that most, if not all of those recently banned knew what they were doing and did it anyway.

I've only ever reported one post and that was maybe a year or more ago. I usually think it's just not my place to report other user's posts. However in the past week or so I'm starting to change my view. Threads get closed rather than just removing offending posts because there aren't enough mods to spend the time to do all that. But I'm starting to think of it more as a community service, along the lines of what Expat said. In the political subforum, if we see people making the kind of comments that get threads closed, if the mods were made aware of that early on so that mods can delete the posts before things get out of hand, those threads could remain open for discussion for the rest of us. And along with that, there should be rules against people abusing it as tit-for-tat kind of thing.

 

[jamil]

Ah. I guarantee that's not even an actual person. It's a spam-bot.

Oh crap. I need new glasses. On first read I thought you said "sperm-bot".

Virtual rep for emoticon use.

 

[1911ly]

Yeah, this could be the AK files after all...

OMG!! I can"t hardly spend 5 minute on that forum. They go nuclear with the F bombs over there!

Am I the 1%?

maybe.....

That's one classy emoticon there!!! I like!!

 

[1911ly]

Our next ban candidate?
View Profile: longtwo - INGunOwners

Ding Ding Ding.. We have a winner!!!!

 

[1911ly]

Spam bots are people too. They deserve the right to marry.

Here we go again

IBTL

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I'm going to chime in here, as I feel somewhat responsible for the inconsistency in the moderation of the forum.

My personal belief, is that the members do a really fine job of policing themselves. The reports we receive (and heavily rely on), only instill that belief.
More often than not, an IBTL statement by a member is also a precurser to what will transpire within a given thread. And INGO, in my opinion, is what the members make of it. This thread is one of many that influence my opinion that the board does a great job of policing itself. And the points made here do not go unnoticed.

I tend to be more lax, and not as heavy handed as other staff members. As such, this can create an inconsistency with moderation of the board. It can also lead to the eb and flow of infractions for various things when we've let them go 'borderline' for too long. But I also believe that the diverse backgrounds of our staff is our greatest strength (which far outweighs any weakness present).

I also firmly believe that we are a gun forum. We're here to discuss all things firearms. The lifestyle associated with firearms ownership, and the community we have here, allows the politics forum to exist. But if it were up to me, that forum would not be present here. There are many other outlets for one to discuss general politics with 'the other side' rather than bicker and argue amongst ourselves, and it causes many problems with bans and infractions here.

Henry Rollins once stated something to the effect of: "When we had pastors, politicians, and moms to deal with regarding our Punk Rock music, what surprised me was that the biggest critics were the punks themselves. God forbid we played a song that was longer than 30 seconds, and they'd start complaining 'what are you playing Freebird or something'?"

I think sometimes we can be our own worst enemy.

 

[churchmouse]

HHHHhhhmmmmmmmm-CM- head.....................I like it..................

 

[Dead Duck]

IBTL

 

[chezuki]

HHHHhhhmmmmmmmm-CM- head.....................I like it..................

Can we just simplify it to "****mouse" or "mouse"?

 

[actaeon277]

PooMouse?

 

[chezuki]

PooMouse?

"turdmouse" sounds closer to "churchmouse".