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

[Expat]

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.

I am on several other gun forums that vary widely in what is tolerated. Some will allow pretty much everything and anything. If you don't have a thick skin, leave. You have no place there. On the other extreme is a forum that does not allow any politics at all. Since politics is part of gun ownership, virtually all current events, it is strictly gun talk and nothing more. The mods have to enforce the rules regularly and they do so harshly. There is no feel of community at all there, IMO. Here you are trying split the difference in a way and it becomes pretty tough because, let's face it, race and religion are two of the biggest factors in politics or current events these days.

 

[churchmouse]

"turdmouse" sounds closer to "churchmouse".

I suddenly feel....so....dirty.....

 

[chocktaw2]

Just take a Midol, and man up. This butthurt is killing my neighbor.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am on several other gun forums that vary widely in what is tolerated. Some will allow pretty much everything and anything. If you don't have a thick skin, leave. You have no place there. On the other extreme is a forum that does not allow any politics at all. Since politics is part of gun ownership, virtually all current events, it is strictly gun talk and nothing more. The mods have to enforce the rules regularly and they do so harshly. There is no feel of community at all there, IMO. Here you are trying split the difference in a way and it becomes pretty tough because, let's face it, race and religion are two of the biggest factors in politics or current events these days.

Very well explained. One of the more difficult problems with religion and politics is that a human being is a comprehensive system made up of his or her constituent attributes. In order to deal with others, it is imperative to understand them. Most critically, there are positions that a person will embrace pragmatically, which are negotiable. Others which are philosophical in nature may be less negotiable but still somewhat malleable. Positions based on religious conviction will almost never be the least bit flexible. When you take the latter on an issue which represents a serious threat to your well-being, do you accept it for what it is and respond accordingly to the best of your ability or do you deny the fact of the matter and respond based on a false premise in the name of some amorphous notion of being inoffensive (strange when considering that being threatened is highly offensive in my reckoning)? My frustration goes well beyond the grossly inconsistent enforcement of a rule which really isn't clearly defined enough to establish what is considered the division between religion and politics which is a gray continuum, not two separate issues, but goes on to meet the national insistence on denial in a situation which offers as its prize a block of granite with your name on it.

At least I have a solution for the current frustration regarding the rule and relatively unpredictable enforcement of it. I have plenty of other things that I need to do. Given that the discussion of events and conditions which affect our lifestyle and discussion of the proper response to it has given way to discussion on bans, those who have been banned, and are likely to do so, I see more other activities and less INGO in my future.

 

[1861navy]

As a noob here, this may not count for much but.... I like many others, very much enjoy INGO. We have all dealt snark at one point I'm sure, but not many of us are demeaning, or heavy on insults. The recent rash of bans has caught most of us I think, if not all of us. It's unfortunate that it came to that, because most of us are adults here and are completely capable of policing ourselves. Several have been stepping over the line, and been offensive while doing so. Such is life. At the same time the mods have jobs to do and rules to enforce. In the short time I have been here, this most recent display of bannage has been the worst. Others said this has happened before and I'm sure it has, this is why there are mods.

Another side to this issue I'm seeing is the people who are constantly reporting posts just because they are offended. I have been offended, sometimes extremely offended, by things others have said here, I learned it's best to keep my mouth shut and move on, though sometimes it is hard to resist snark. Snark can offend just as easily as racism, religious, political issues. It becomes hard to draw a line sometimes as to whether or not a post is bannable, or offensive. Others it is quite blatant.

I happen to enjoy the political forum, though I admit at times it is best to avoid it, at times I avoid other areas of INGO, for other reasons. The political thread has changed the way I look at several issues. It becomes very hard to separate religion from politics because the two have gone hand in hand for centuries and that probably won't change anytime soon. Atop of the current issues, race, and religion, are part of the discussion and the discussion is political. I personally wish we were allowed to discuss religion, as long as it didn't resort to personal attacks, attacks or condemnation of an entire religious group or ethnic group.

 

[Dead Duck]

As a noob here, this may not count for much but.... I like many others, very much enjoy INGO. We have all dealt snark at one point I'm sure, but not many of us are demeaning, or heavy on insults. The recent rash of bans has caught most of us I think, if not all of us. It's unfortunate that it came to that, because most of us are adults here and are completely capable of policing ourselves. Several have been stepping over the line, and been offensive while doing so. Such is life. At the same time the mods have jobs to do and rules to enforce. In the short time I have been here, this most recent display of bannage has been the worst. Others said this has happened before and I'm sure it has, this is why there are mods.

Another side to this issue I'm seeing is the people who are constantly reporting posts just because they are offended. I have been offended, sometimes extremely offended, by things others have said here, I learned it's best to keep my mouth shut and move on, though sometimes it is hard to resist snark. Snark can offend just as easily as racism, religious, political issues. It becomes hard to draw a line sometimes as to whether or not a post is bannable, or offensive. Others it is quite blatant.

I happen to enjoy the political forum, though I admit at times it is best to avoid it, at times I avoid other areas of INGO, for other reasons. The political thread has changed the way I look at several issues. It becomes very hard to separate religion from politics because the two have gone hand in hand for centuries and that probably won't change anytime soon. Atop of the current issues, race, and religion, are part of the discussion and the discussion is political. I personally wish we were allowed to discuss religion, as long as it didn't resort to personal attacks, attacks or condemnation of an entire religious group or ethnic group.

Offensive Post

**REPORTED**

 

[1861navy]

Offensive Post

**REPORTED**

** REPORTED **




tit for tat.....

 

[1911ly]

Knock it off before I report the both of you!!!!

 

[chezuki]

Hehe... He said tit.

 

[1911ly]

Hehe... He said tit.

Gasp!!!!!

 

[Gluemanz28]

Although the ban hammer seems harsh at times, I can say that it has removed some very annoying people from INGO and makes it a lot more enjoyable on here with out them.

 

[PaulF]

Very well explained. One of the more difficult problems with religion and politics is that a human being is a comprehensive system made up of his or her constituent attributes. In order to deal with others, it is imperative to understand them. Most critically, there are positions that a person will embrace pragmatically, which are negotiable. Others which are philosophical in nature may be less negotiable but still somewhat malleable. Positions based on religious conviction will almost never be the least bit flexible. When you take the latter on an issue which represents a serious threat to your well-being, do you accept it for what it is and respond accordingly to the best of your ability or do you deny the fact of the matter and respond based on a false premise in the name of some amorphous notion of being inoffensive (strange when considering that being threatened is highly offensive in my reckoning)? My frustration goes well beyond the grossly inconsistent enforcement of a rule which really isn't clearly defined enough to establish what is considered the division between religion and politics which is a gray continuum, not two separate issues, but goes on to meet the national insistence on denial in a situation which offers as its prize a block of granite with your name on it.

At least I have a solution for the current frustration regarding the rule and relatively unpredictable enforcement of it. I have plenty of other things that I need to do. Given that the discussion of events and conditions which affect our lifestyle and discussion of the proper response to it has given way to discussion on bans, those who have been banned, and are likely to do so, I see more other activities and less INGO in my future.

Dave,

You have made several excellent posts in this thread, and others, and I do not want you to think I am ignoring your input.

The rule, as it is written, is absolutely clear: No religion. This means no religion. In combination with rule 4 (Disciplinary action falls fully within Moderator discretion) this means plainly: Posting religious material is against the rules, it is up to the moderator to determine the appropriate action to take. The results may include an In-Thread Warning (it may not), it may include Warning-Level Infractions (it may not), it may include Violation-Level Infractions (or not). It may include bans (hopefully not)...it may be ignored completely.

You have brought up the elephant in the room, so I am going to address it:

State-Sanctioned Islamic Violence, in the Middle-East and elsewhere.

It has been repeatedly suggested that political discussion concerning ISIS, IS, Al Queda, Iran, Iraq and Syria CANNOT be separated from discussion of religion. I have two thoughts in regard to this, and I'll share them both:

1) The argument that ISIS and Islam cannot be separated is simply not valid. These brutal, power-hungry thugs have found a perfect vehicle for their political agenda...they exploit a culture where religious devotion is held above all else, in spite of all else...including literacy. They wrap themselves in the the veil of Islam, so that those who know no better can be lured closer to the looming slaughter. The Nazis used Nationalism to placate their average citizenry, these guys use religious fervor. In the end I don't think it's all that different. My point is: I think it is possible to speak to the horrors that the various regimes represent without disparaging the beliefs of a billion people worldwide...most of whom don't understand the conflict to begin with, and wouldn't likely support what is really going on there if they did.

2) If, in fact, it is not possible to discuss a specific political issue without delving into the religious aspects of that certain topic, well...that topic must be considered "off limits". Continued discussion runs the risk of disciplinary action. Tread lightly, if you must tread at all.

Now, with that said, I would like to make a personal comment in regards to enforcement:

(It's getting late, I'll keep this brief)

I have no interest in punishing anyone for their religious beliefs. Mine would likely get me banned if I chose to share them.

If you write an informative and insightful post in a political thread that touches on relevant religious territory (ie: Information in a specific region's culture is largely delivered through the Mosque, so even deliberate misinformation carries divine weight to the naive) , while expressly forbidden by our rules, is not likely AT ALL to get you banned. When I can see the value in the post, and the religious element supports the political element I am far less likely to take action against the user. If you sneak a truly inappropriate comment into an otherwise insightful post, I am not going straight to a ban (IN MOST CASES), you'd likely get an infraction and asked politely to stop that.

The worst you will get from me, if you get stupid in a post that means well otherwise, is a 48-hour temp ban. Like I stated up-thread: this is nothing more than a warning in the General Political Forum. Take a couple of days off, recompose your thoughts, and return to fight within the rules.

Now. Most of the posts that result in bans boil down to one of these:

-"Those savages are all the same, this wouldn't be a problem if they had (X, usually MY) religion". Along with this goes the "Their book says this is all OK, they should all have to read (X, usually MY) book" comments. These are laughable under any serious scrutiny. Post a variant of this and you will get banned. Hard.

-"Some people, who proclaim to be my enemies, worship (GodX), therefore all people who worship (GodX) are also my enemies." This is a fallacy, and I will ban anyone who posts similar drivel.

-Anthing that includes "Those People" or "You People" will face close scrutiny.

-Any reference to another person's religion (or religious belief, itself) in a derogatory fashion, ie: talk of imaginary friends, books of fairy tales, mythology...these will get you banned. I wasn't aware this was an issue until recently, and it is far more ingrained than I had imagined. It stops now.

It's late, I'm tired. I will gladly continue this discussion tomorrow, if there is still any interest.

Personally and sincerely,

Paul

The rest of you:
Behave.

 

[Sylvain]

 

[1911ly]

Dave,

You have made several excellent posts in this thread, and others, and I do not want you to think I am ignoring your input.

The rule, as it is written, is absolutely clear: No religion. This means no religion. In combination with rule 4 (Disciplinary action falls fully within Moderator discretion) this means plainly: Posting religious material is against the rules, it is up to the moderator to determine the appropriate action to take. The results may include an In-Thread warning (or it may not), it may include Warning-level infractions (it may not), it may include Violation-Level Infractions (or not). It may include bans (hopefully not)...it may be ignored completely.

You have brought up the elephant in the room, so I am going to address it:

State-Sanctioned Islamic Violence, in the Middle-East and elsewhere.

It has been repeatedly suggested that political discussion concerning ISIS, IS, Al Queda, Iran, Iraq and Syria CANNOT be separated from discussion of religion. I have two thoughts in regard to this, and I'll share them both:

1) The argument that ISIS and Islam cannot be separated is simply not valid. These brutal, power-hungry thugs have found a perfect vehicle for their political agenda...they exploit a culture where religious devotion is held above all else, in spite of all else...including literacy. They wrap themselves in the the veil of Islam, so that those who know no better can be lured closer the looming slaughter. The Nazis used Nationalism to placate their average citizenry, these guys use religious fervor. In the end I don't think it's all that different. My point is: I think it is possible to speak of the horrors that the various regimes represent without disparing the beliefs of a billion people worldwide. Most of whom don't understand the conflict to begin with, and wouldn't likey support what is really going on there.

2) If, in fact, it is not possible to discuss a specific political issue without delving into the religious aspects of that certain topic, well...that topic must be considered "off limits". Continued discussion runs the risk of disciplinary action. Tread lightly, if you must tread at all.

Now, with that said, I would like to make a personal comment in regards to enforcement:

(It's getting late, I'll keep this brief)

I have no interest in punishing anyone for their religious beliefs. Mine would likely get me banned if I chose to share them.

If you write an informative and insightful post in a political thread that touches on relevant religious territory (ie: Information in a specific region's culture is largely delivered through the Mosque, so even deliberate misinformation carries divine weight to the naive) , while expressly forbidden by our rules, is not likely AT ALL to get you banned. When I can see the value in the post, and the religious element supports the political element I am far less likely to take action against the user. If you sneak a truly inappropriate comment into an otherwise insightful post, I am not going straight to a ban (IN MOST CASES), you'd likely get an infraction and asked politely to stop that.

The worst you will get from me, if you get stupid in a post that means well otherwise, is a 48-hour temp ban. Like I stated up-thread: this is nothing more than a warning in the General Political Forum. Take a couple of days off, recompose your thoughts, and return to fight within the rules.

Now. Most of the posts that result in bans boil down to one of these:

-"Those savages are all the same, this wouldn't be a problem if they had (X, usually MY) religion". Along with this goes the "Their book says this is all OK, they should all have to read (X, usually MY) book" comments. These are laughable under any serious scrutiny. Post a variant of this and you will get banned. Hard.

-"Some people, who proclaim to be my enemies, worship (GodX), therefore all people who worship (GodX) are also my enemies." This is a fallacy, and I will ban anyone who posts similar drivel.

-Anthing that includes "Those People" or "You People" will face close scrutiny.

-Any reference to another person's religion (or religious belief, itself) in a derogatory fashion, ie: talk of imaginary friends and books of fairy tales, mythology...these will get you banned. I wasn't aware this was an issue until recently, and it is more ingrained than I had imagined. It stops now.

It's late, I'm tired. I will gladly continue this discussion tomorrow, if there is still any interest.

Personally and sincerely,

Paul


Behave.

I don't envy you your job of policing the forums. I rules are rules. Someone has to enforce them. I wish you the best buddy. I'll try to make less work for you!

 

[bradmedic04]

Although the ban hammer seems harsh at times, I can say that it has removed some very annoying people from INGO and makes it a lot more enjoyable on here with out them.

Like whom?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

** REPORTED **




tit for tat.....

Okay, just what is this "tat" I keep hearing about, and where can I get some, so I can trade it for the other??

 

[jamil]

PaulF, well said.

You have brought up the elephant in the room, so I am going to address it:

State-Sanctioned Islamic Violence, in the Middle-East and elsewhere.

It has been repeatedly suggested that political discussion concerning ISIS, IS, Al Queda, Iran, Iraq and Syria CANNOT be separated from discussion of religion. I have two thoughts in regard to this, and I'll share them both:

1) The argument that ISIS and Islam cannot be separated is simply not valid. These brutal, power-hungry thugs have found a perfect vehicle for their political agenda...they exploit a culture where religious devotion is held above all else, in spite of all else...including literacy. They wrap themselves in the the veil of Islam, so that those who know no better can be lured closer to the looming slaughter. The Nazis used Nationalism to placate their average citizenry, these guys use religious fervor. In the end I don't think it's all that different. My point is: I think it is possible to speak to the horrors that the various regimes represent without disparaging the beliefs of a billion people worldwide...most of whom don't understand the conflict to begin with, and wouldn't likely support what is really going on there if they did.

2) If, in fact, it is not possible to discuss a specific political issue without delving into the religious aspects of that certain topic, well...that topic must be considered "off limits". Continued discussion runs the risk of disciplinary action. Tread lightly, if you must tread at all.

Since you brought it up.....


History is full of individuals who have exploited religion to accomplish evil purposes. A common complaint against religion from non-religious people is that untold millions of people have beeen slaughtered in the name of religion and they blame religion itself. This is just as fallacious as blaming guns for the evil things individuals do with them. And it doesn't even need to be a religious belief.

Look at all the examples of political leaders who have exploited people's pride, sense of nationalism, fears, ideologies, whatever belief that they can exploit. They promising one agenda to gain support while actively working to fulfill another. People blame the belief itself, which is the wrong culprit. The individuals who choose to exploit other people's beliefs to accomplish evil purposes are completely to blame. Exploiting other people's belief is only a tool, and if non-religious people think that they're immune to having their beliefs exploited by crafty individuals, they're full of .

So, when religious people blame other entire religions for the exploitation of that religion, they're actually supporting the same argument the atheists have against them, that all the evil things done in the name of that religion is the fault of that religion.

 

[MisterChester]

Hehe... He said tit.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN OF INGO.

***REPORTED***

 

[MisterChester]

Like whom?

Best ban hammer decision was probably Trooper.

 

[T.Lex]

Looks like the ISIS threat to Putin thread is heating up a bit. Complete with obscure references to pre-WWII non-interventionist groups.

Hey - in some circles I run in, those'd be fightin' words!