User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:26:21 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:26:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do tell. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys are missing the real problem here.  Do tell. It was just an attempt at a funny (sig line). I'm not very good at it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:29:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was just an attempt at a funny (sig line). I'm not very good at it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys are missing the real problem here. Do tell. It was just an attempt at a funny (sig line). I'm not very good at it. I didn't even notice. My situational awareness sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:29:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's no injustice, I'm trying to get photos of what was in the safe first! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys are missing the real problem here. That IRGRUNT0311 has suffered a great injustice? There's no injustice, I'm trying to get photos of what was in the safe first!  THAT is how you handle safe threads. And those gifs/memes had me in tears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:30:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue, I really do. But I think your proposed suggestion will only make the sites uneven moderation worse. Hitting the report button should get you a fair judgement on the COC. I know that different people are going to see things differently, but encouraging people to contact mod after mod until they find one that agrees is going to make everything harder for everyone. Another case in point. My one and only warning here came when I asked a tongue in cheek question about a type of firearm. Unbeknownst to me, the fellow I asked the question to is a very thinned skinned special snowflake who pestered site staff until I got dinged. The staffer who Imed me was apologetic and explained that the warning was mostly just to shut the snowflake up. In the grand scheme of things, that warning doesnt mean much to me. Yes, I violated the COC in the most technical sense possible (official violation was "trolling"), so I earned it. But when I really think about it, it is frustrating because there are members here who troll like there is no tomorrow without any repercussion. Just another case of uneven moderation. And if members start playing musical mods trying find someone who's sympathetic to them, it's going to make that moderation even more uneven. Well in a case of mom vs dad, nobody really wins, but the point is that this isn't about a win/lose situation, it's about moderation. This is a subjective thing handled by humans. You can hope it's even, but it's difficult when it involves multiple people. The best I can do is offer to moderate everything, but then the site code and servers wont get the attention they need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:30:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is allowed? I thought that was a good way to earn a timeout? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In regards to the bike path death thread, it was being trolled and obviously so. It's perfectly fine to say the officer should be fired and locked up. It's a horrible situation and deserves discussion, but why can't people just discuss it and not drag this topic into it or others? People will let emotion drive them to push the limits of comments made in good taste. If those comments existed in a thread about Bill Gates running a kid over while rebooting his car, it would have been locked the same way. It's not specific to being about an LEO, it was how people were acting in the thread. Start a new thread (if one doesn't already exist) and discuss the situation without the over the top sarcasm and hate and it wont get locked. This is allowed? I thought that was a good way to earn a timeout? That was always worth a time out as far as I knew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:31:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isolated incident. Will posts like this still be allowed? Serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:32:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I may a shitty Chief in your eyes, but I can sleep at night regardless of the outcome. If this place ends or if it grows, it will do so based on what I thought was the best path for us all. Everyone has to respect the shit out of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:32:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why not make the "special" forums VIEWABLE by all? Keep potential trolls at bay while allowing transparency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:32:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Will thebeekeeper1 get banned for trolling? Will Josh get banned for mocking sarcasm? Tune in next minute for As The Banhammer Swings.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:34:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Come to think on it, the member that inspired me to buy my first membership was banned. Chuckthetruthmaster I think his name was. He was an obvious troll, who made a hilarious thread. He got me on this site as a paying member with his hilarity and since then I have bought 3 or 4 memberships, and spent several thousand dollars at various vendors that I would never have heard of if not for this site.
I got good deals on every purchase, so I benefited quite a bit but still, that troll made some money for the site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:34:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't remember all the details or whether he was even banned, but I think he moved to Chicago or something and just got out of guns as a hobby. That's all I remember. His glory lives on though, in the annals of the GD forum of yore ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, nevermind. I see you joined in 2012. When I say "the mean old one," I mean like 12 years ago. Nah, I never got to be part of that. From all I have heard it was a lot better. I take your word for that. Go Google "McUzi rant" to get an idea.  I miss him. I don't remember all the details or whether he was even banned, but I think he moved to Chicago or something and just got out of guns as a hobby. That's all I remember. His glory lives on though, in the annals of the GD forum of yore ... IIRC, him and one of the other guys were given their own subforum to get their shenanigans out fo GD, and that got even too weird for Arf. 
I think he did get the ban hammer though, but I couldn't tell you for what. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:35:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait. I said NO such thing. See how things get misunderstood? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... I'm not smart enough to appreciate your comments. Please dumb them down so I will understand. thank U. My interpretation of his post: The unwritten "Tonk" rule has grown so large that if you go on vacation for a week, you'll miss on the latest updates to the unpublished list; most recently saying "Hammermill Thread" which some people didn't know is now forbidden. Wait. Is that really verboten? Wait. I said NO such thing. See how things get misunderstood?  Hammermill post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:36:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone has to respect the shit out of that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So I may a shitty Chief in your eyes, but I can sleep at night regardless of the outcome. If this place ends or if it grows, it will do so based on what I thought was the best path for us all. Everyone has to respect the shit out of that. Yep. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:36:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes it means believing in what you are doing when you put your heart into it, regardless of what some folks who can't let things go think.
I value your input Josh, I honestly do, but I have faith that by slightly pissing everyone off from all sides of this mess, I am on the right path. Balance is hard to achieve and it takes sacrifice by everyone. We all give in a little so that we all gain a lot. So I may a shitty Chief in your eyes, but I can sleep at night regardless of the outcome. If this place ends or if it grows, it will do so based on what I thought was the best path for us all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All that is nothing more than shorthand to say It's a leadership problem. Sometimes leadership means letting people go. Sometimes it means fixing them. Sometimes it means working with the status quo and making things better. Sometimes it means believing in what you are doing when you put your heart into it, regardless of what some folks who can't let things go think.
I value your input Josh, I honestly do, but I have faith that by slightly pissing everyone off from all sides of this mess, I am on the right path. Balance is hard to achieve and it takes sacrifice by everyone. We all give in a little so that we all gain a lot. So I may a shitty Chief in your eyes, but I can sleep at night regardless of the outcome. If this place ends or if it grows, it will do so based on what I thought was the best path for us all. I didn't say you were a shitty leader... I'm pretty sure that all the input I've provided has been disregarded, but it's your site and you can do that if you so desire. I probably will spend less and less time around here if things go as I believe they will in the future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:36:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was masterfully done. It was Art. No way should that get a person banned. that is the stuff legends are made of, and money...
the brain that thought that up, you want that brain on your side. You don't have to like it. but you are stronger with people like that on your team, and as a member of your organization. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, nevermind. I see you joined in 2012. When I say "the mean old one," I mean like 12 years ago. Nah, I never got to be part of that. From all I have heard it was a lot better. I take your word for that. Go Google "McUzi rant" to get an idea. That was masterfully done. It was Art. No way should that get a person banned. that is the stuff legends are made of, and money...
the brain that thought that up, you want that brain on your side. You don't have to like it. but you are stronger with people like that on your team, and as a member of your organization. If one does a little internet research, it turns out that McUzi copied the rant from an existing one. As one that had to deal with him on a daily basis, and as one that had a hand in his bannage, McUzi was clever, but clever by half. He consistently underestimated the folks not on his side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:38:47 PM EDT
[#17]
The site has seemed to turn a corner for the better my good chums.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:39:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, him and one of the other guys were given their own subforum to get their shenanigans out fo GD, and that got even too weird for Arf.
I think he did get the ban hammer though, but I couldn't tell you for what. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Go Google "McUzi rant" to get an idea. I miss him. I don't remember all the details or whether he was even banned, but I think he moved to Chicago or something and just got out of guns as a hobby. That's all I remember. His glory lives on though, in the annals of the GD forum of yore ... IIRC, him and one of the other guys were given their own subforum to get their shenanigans out fo GD, and that got even too weird for Arf.
I think he did get the ban hammer though, but I couldn't tell you for what. McUzi become a nurse. I hope that he has lived a great life and success has found him. He was a trouble maker, but a good guy. He also had the balls to show up at the original BRC and most people shared a few beers with him. I know I drank quite a few with him and we had a great time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:40:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well in a case of mom vs dad, nobody really wins, but the point is that this isn't about a win/lose situation, it's about moderation. This is a subjective thing handled by humans. You can hope it's even, but it's difficult when it involves multiple people. The best I can do is offer to moderate everything, but then the site code and servers wont get the attention they need. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue, I really do. But I think your proposed suggestion will only make the sites uneven moderation worse. Hitting the report button should get you a fair judgement on the COC. I know that different people are going to see things differently, but encouraging people to contact mod after mod until they find one that agrees is going to make everything harder for everyone. Another case in point. My one and only warning here came when I asked a tongue in cheek question about a type of firearm. Unbeknownst to me, the fellow I asked the question to is a very thinned skinned special snowflake who pestered site staff until I got dinged. The staffer who Imed me was apologetic and explained that the warning was mostly just to shut the snowflake up. In the grand scheme of things, that warning doesnt mean much to me. Yes, I violated the COC in the most technical sense possible (official violation was "trolling"), so I earned it. But when I really think about it, it is frustrating because there are members here who troll like there is no tomorrow without any repercussion. Just another case of uneven moderation. And if members start playing musical mods trying find someone who's sympathetic to them, it's going to make that moderation even more uneven. Well in a case of mom vs dad, nobody really wins, but the point is that this isn't about a win/lose situation, it's about moderation. This is a subjective thing handled by humans. You can hope it's even, but it's difficult when it involves multiple people. The best I can do is offer to moderate everything, but then the site code and servers wont get the attention they need. One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:40:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys are missing the real problem here. That you guys haven't banned CRC's retread account and made saying his name in his threads a lockable offense? But now seem to be ignoring it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:40:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm pretty sure that all the input I've provided has been disregarded, but it's your site and you can do that if you so desire. I probably will spend less and less time around here if things go as I believe they will in the future. None of your input has been disregarded. As I said, I value your opinion quite a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:41:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If one does a little internet research, it turns out that McUzi copied the rant from an existing one. As one that had to deal with him on a daily basis, and as one that had a hand in his bannage, McUzi was clever, but clever by half. He consistently underestimated the folks not on his side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, nevermind. I see you joined in 2012. When I say "the mean old one," I mean like 12 years ago. Nah, I never got to be part of that. From all I have heard it was a lot better. I take your word for that. Go Google "McUzi rant" to get an idea. That was masterfully done. It was Art. No way should that get a person banned. that is the stuff legends are made of, and money...
the brain that thought that up, you want that brain on your side. You don't have to like it. but you are stronger with people like that on your team, and as a member of your organization. If one does a little internet research, it turns out that McUzi copied the rant from an existing one. As one that had to deal with him on a daily basis, and as one that had a hand in his bannage, McUzi was clever, but clever by half. He consistently underestimated the folks not on his side. As a person who hasn't done the research, or read his daily postings ,and probably joined long after his ban, I'll have to take your word for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:42:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If one does a little internet research, it turns out that McUzi copied the rant from an existing one. As one that had to deal with him on a daily basis, and as one that had a hand in his bannage, McUzi was clever, but clever by half. He consistently underestimated the folks not on his side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, nevermind. I see you joined in 2012. When I say "the mean old one," I mean like 12 years ago. Nah, I never got to be part of that. From all I have heard it was a lot better. I take your word for that. Go Google "McUzi rant" to get an idea. That was masterfully done. It was Art. No way should that get a person banned. that is the stuff legends are made of, and money...
the brain that thought that up, you want that brain on your side. You don't have to like it. but you are stronger with people like that on your team, and as a member of your organization. If one does a little internet research, it turns out that McUzi copied the rant from an existing one. As one that had to deal with him on a daily basis, and as one that had a hand in his bannage, McUzi was clever, but clever by half. He consistently underestimated the folks not on his side. There is more than one McUzi rant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:44:46 PM EDT
[#24]
I posted some ideas but obviously they are buried beneath the noise floor.
Why not require an NRA, SAF, or other 2A org membership? My rifle clubs both do it, every year I have to show them a current members card. This would allow people to maintain their anonymity among their peers, but also let staff weed out the retreads. And more membership in these organizations is a good thing. Too expensive? Tough. Freedom is not free.Too hard to administer? Tough. You're now trying to develop a COC that splits every hair for every possible scenario. That's going to be an administration nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:45:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. Again, part of the change for locks. I created more work for me (by a lot!) and the staff, but it will be beneficial in the long run for everyone. As has been stated before, Staff already shares and discusses most infractions. I think the new way will improve on that quite a bit and also eliminate the "I was locked by so and so" hate. If you get locked now it may initially be by 1 person, but it will be with majority of staff's involvement. Same for unlocks. It wont be a "go check with the guy who locked you', it will be brought up for review by all. (This also is typically handled as a group, if it makes it that far or if one of us champions the discussion.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:46:34 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unpossible, this is new lovable ARFcom. Ok, last try...here's what I'm trying to say raf...I have to use pictures, apparently. http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062011/1308916421_monkey_owns_kid.gif What I'm saying is, you're the asian kid, and the monkey are the rules, and the cup is the membership. No wait, the membership is asian kid, and you're the cup and the monkey is our sense of our own mortality. Yeah, that's it. Jesus. Do I need to use crayons? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's trolling you. Unpossible, this is new lovable ARFcom. Ok, last try...here's what I'm trying to say raf...I have to use pictures, apparently. http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062011/1308916421_monkey_owns_kid.gif What I'm saying is, you're the asian kid, and the monkey are the rules, and the cup is the membership. No wait, the membership is asian kid, and you're the cup and the monkey is our sense of our own mortality. Yeah, that's it. Jesus. Do I need to use crayons? I understand, now. You think the Membership here is a cupful of monkey butt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:47:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I posted some ideas but obviously they are buried beneath the noise floor. Why not require an NRA, SAF, or other 2A org membership? My rifle clubs both do it, every year I have to show them a current members card. This would allow people to maintain their anonymity among their peers, but also let staff weed out the retreads. And more membership in these organizations is a good thing. Too expensive? Tough. Freedom is not free.Too hard to administer? Tough. You're now trying to develop a COC that splits every hair for every possible scenario. That's going to be an administration nightmare. This would be a cool idea, but would limit exposure for new people to learn about those organizations enough to join them. Let's educate people, addict them to the black rifle, and show them what it takes to defend our freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:48:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well in a case of mom vs dad, nobody really wins, but the point is that this isn't about a win/lose situation, it's about moderation. This is a subjective thing handled by humans. You can hope it's even, but it's difficult when it involves multiple people. The best I can do is offer to moderate everything, but then the site code and servers wont get the attention they need. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue, I really do. But I think your proposed suggestion will only make the sites uneven moderation worse. Hitting the report button should get you a fair judgement on the COC. I know that different people are going to see things differently, but encouraging people to contact mod after mod until they find one that agrees is going to make everything harder for everyone. Another case in point. My one and only warning here came when I asked a tongue in cheek question about a type of firearm. Unbeknownst to me, the fellow I asked the question to is a very thinned skinned special snowflake who pestered site staff until I got dinged. The staffer who Imed me was apologetic and explained that the warning was mostly just to shut the snowflake up. In the grand scheme of things, that warning doesnt mean much to me. Yes, I violated the COC in the most technical sense possible (official violation was "trolling"), so I earned it. But when I really think about it, it is frustrating because there are members here who troll like there is no tomorrow without any repercussion. Just another case of uneven moderation. And if members start playing musical mods trying find someone who's sympathetic to them, it's going to make that moderation even more uneven. Well in a case of mom vs dad, nobody really wins, but the point is that this isn't about a win/lose situation, it's about moderation. This is a subjective thing handled by humans. You can hope it's even, but it's difficult when it involves multiple people. The best I can do is offer to moderate everything, but then the site code and servers wont get the attention they need. I understand, and I don't envy the position you find yourself in. But I do really appreciate the willingness to listen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:48:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This would be a cool idea, but would limit exposure for new people to learn about those organizations enough to join them. Let's educate people, addict them to the black rifle, and show them what it takes to defend our freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I posted some ideas but obviously they are buried beneath the noise floor. Why not require an NRA, SAF, or other 2A org membership? My rifle clubs both do it, every year I have to show them a current members card. This would allow people to maintain their anonymity among their peers, but also let staff weed out the retreads. And more membership in these organizations is a good thing. Too expensive? Tough. Freedom is not free.Too hard to administer? Tough. You're now trying to develop a COC that splits every hair for every possible scenario. That's going to be an administration nightmare. This would be a cool idea, but would limit exposure for new people to learn about those organizations enough to join them. Let's educate people, addict them to the black rifle, and show them what it takes to defend our freedom. So eliminate the free membership and let people lurk until they're ready to pony up a membership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:50:32 PM EDT
[#30]
If nothing else, it's good timing to get this all in place as the election cycle ramps up.
2012 obviously was a huge influx, as well as 2009 when I joined. This cycle I have no doubt everyone is going to go apeshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:50:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue, I really do. But I think your proposed suggestion will only make the sites uneven moderation worse. Hitting the report button should get you a fair judgement on the COC. I know that different people are going to see things differently, but encouraging people to contact mod after mod until they find one that agrees is going to make everything harder for everyone. Another case in point. My one and only warning here came when I asked a tongue in cheek question about a type of firearm. Unbeknownst to me, the fellow I asked the question to is a very thinned skinned special snowflake who pestered site staff until I got dinged. The staffer who Imed me was apologetic and explained that the warning was mostly just to shut the snowflake up. In the grand scheme of things, that warning doesnt mean much to me. Yes, I violated the COC in the most technical sense possible (official violation was "trolling"), so I earned it. But when I really think about it, it is frustrating because there are members here who troll like there is no tomorrow without any repercussion. Just another case of uneven moderation. And if members start playing musical mods trying find someone who's sympathetic to them, it's going to make that moderation even more uneven. Well in a case of mom vs dad, nobody really wins, but the point is that this isn't about a win/lose situation, it's about moderation. This is a subjective thing handled by humans. You can hope it's even, but it's difficult when it involves multiple people. The best I can do is offer to moderate everything, but then the site code and servers wont get the attention they need. One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. All bans are reviewed by staff as per SOP. No unilateral Bans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:51:09 PM EDT
[#32]
I must be doing it wrong, because I don't ever recall hitting the report button.
If I did, it is long since forgotten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:51:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This would be a cool idea, but would limit exposure for new people to learn about those organizations enough to join them. Let's educate people, addict them to the black rifle, and show them what it takes to defend our freedom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I posted some ideas but obviously they are buried beneath the noise floor. Why not require an NRA, SAF, or other 2A org membership? My rifle clubs both do it, every year I have to show them a current members card. This would allow people to maintain their anonymity among their peers, but also let staff weed out the retreads. And more membership in these organizations is a good thing. Too expensive? Tough. Freedom is not free.Too hard to administer? Tough. You're now trying to develop a COC that splits every hair for every possible scenario. That's going to be an administration nightmare. This would be a cool idea, but would limit exposure for new people to learn about those organizations enough to join them. Let's educate people, addict them to the black rifle, and show them what it takes to defend our freedom. Furthermore the state of GD presently drives away potential members. I try to recruit local shooters and they say "Oh, Arfcom, that place is a zoo" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:51:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, part of the change for locks. I created more work for me (by a lot!) and the staff, but it will be beneficial in the long run for everyone. As has been stated before, Staff already shares and discusses most infractions. I think the new way will improve on that quite a bit and also eliminate the "I was locked by so and so" hate. If you get locked now it may initially be by 1 person, but it will be with majority of staff's involvement. Same for unlocks. It wont be a "go check with the guy who locked you', it will be brought up for review by all. (This also is typically handled as a group, if it makes it that far or if one of us champions the discussion.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. Again, part of the change for locks. I created more work for me (by a lot!) and the staff, but it will be beneficial in the long run for everyone. As has been stated before, Staff already shares and discusses most infractions. I think the new way will improve on that quite a bit and also eliminate the "I was locked by so and so" hate. If you get locked now it may initially be by 1 person, but it will be with majority of staff's involvement. Same for unlocks. It wont be a "go check with the guy who locked you', it will be brought up for review by all. (This also is typically handled as a group, if it makes it that far or if one of us champions the discussion.) This sounds like a very positive change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:54:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, part of the change for locks. I created more work for me (by a lot!) and the staff, but it will be beneficial in the long run for everyone. As has been stated before, Staff already shares and discusses most infractions. I think the new way will improve on that quite a bit and also eliminate the "I was locked by so and so" hate. If you get locked now it may initially be by 1 person, but it will be with majority of staff's involvement. Same for unlocks. It wont be a "go check with the guy who locked you', it will be brought up for review by all. (This also is typically handled as a group, if it makes it that far or if one of us champions the discussion.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. Again, part of the change for locks. I created more work for me (by a lot!) and the staff, but it will be beneficial in the long run for everyone. As has been stated before, Staff already shares and discusses most infractions. I think the new way will improve on that quite a bit and also eliminate the "I was locked by so and so" hate. If you get locked now it may initially be by 1 person, but it will be with majority of staff's involvement. Same for unlocks. It wont be a "go check with the guy who locked you', it will be brought up for review by all. (This also is typically handled as a group, if it makes it that far or if one of us champions the discussion.) Sounds like an excellent advancement in policy. By saying it will create more work for you, does this mean you will be involved (as part of the panel) for every lock? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:55:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All bans are reviewed by staff as per SOP. No unilateral Bans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One policy that has always struck me as odd is the "go email the Staff/Mod who warned or locked you if you disagree with it." That's like Demi Moore's character in "A Few Good Men" thinking that the judge will suddenly change his mind as long as she "strenuously" objects. There should be a formal review process and panel of staff. Like an appellate court. Doesn't need to be you if you have computer things to do. All bans are reviewed by staff as per SOP. No unilateral Bans. Doesn't really address my point about being told to go appeal to your own executioner. Nor does it tell us anything about what "reviewed by staff" or "SOP" mean. Which staff? How many them? What is the process? Is there a vote? What is considered? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:58:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If nothing else, it's good timing to get this all in place as the election cycle ramps up. 2012 obviously was a huge influx, as well as 2009 when I joined. This cycle I have no doubt everyone is going to go apeshit. ... You have no idea... It's going to be spectacular... The surge is already starting, and it's 14 months until the election... The influx of idiots, mouth-breathing allies, DU trolls, and everything else is going to be unimaginable. Especially next summer. Might as well code in an emergency-ban button for established team members which can be activated in crisis... It's going to be needed, like handing out shotguns during a zombie uprising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:58:47 PM EDT
[#38]
I like that ideal a lot
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So eliminate the free membership and let people lurk until they're ready to pony up a membership. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I posted some ideas but obviously they are buried beneath the noise floor. Why not require an NRA, SAF, or other 2A org membership? My rifle clubs both do it, every year I have to show them a current members card. This would allow people to maintain their anonymity among their peers, but also let staff weed out the retreads. And more membership in these organizations is a good thing. Too expensive? Tough. Freedom is not free.Too hard to administer? Tough. You're now trying to develop a COC that splits every hair for every possible scenario. That's going to be an administration nightmare. This would be a cool idea, but would limit exposure for new people to learn about those organizations enough to join them. Let's educate people, addict them to the black rifle, and show them what it takes to defend our freedom. So eliminate the free membership and let people lurk until they're ready to pony up a membership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:59:22 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I must be doing it wrong, because I don't ever recall hitting the report button. If I did, it is long since forgotten. Yeah. The only time I recall reporting was during clean up of the original Arfcockalypse. I'm always late to the COC's anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:59:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... You have no idea... It's going to be spectacular... The surge is already starting, and it's 14 months until the election... The influx of idiots, mouth-breathing allies, DU trolls, and everything else is going to be unimaginable. Especially next summer. Might as well code in an emergency-ban button for established team members which can be activated in crisis... It's going to be needed, like handing out shotguns during a zombie uprising. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If nothing else, it's good timing to get this all in place as the election cycle ramps up. 2012 obviously was a huge influx, as well as 2009 when I joined. This cycle I have no doubt everyone is going to go apeshit. ... You have no idea... It's going to be spectacular... The surge is already starting, and it's 14 months until the election... The influx of idiots, mouth-breathing allies, DU trolls, and everything else is going to be unimaginable. Especially next summer. Might as well code in an emergency-ban button for established team members which can be activated in crisis... It's going to be needed, like handing out shotguns during a zombie uprising. Goatboy is ready
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 10:59:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... That thread was locked because of the large number of personal attacks. By the time a mod took a look at it, there were too many to edit, so the thread was locked. Nobody was "shutting down your right to voice an opinion" - the thread wasn't locked because it was critical of LEO, or because of the topic. The thread was locked because of the number of CoC violations inside it. It's actually a good example of precisely what GoatBoy is talking about. There were tons of people in that thread who were essentially being disrespetful jerks to each other, with snarky insults, sarcasm, mocking images intended to insult people, etc. So then he could technically start a new thread since the violations were other people mucking up the thread? But if, for instance, the 2nd thread goes the same way then a 3rd thread would likely be frowned upon for being an inflammatory subject? Often, when we lock a thread for "too many violations to quote" it's perfectly fine for the OP (or someone else) to start it again - and typically remind people in the OP to not engage in personal attacks or CoC violations. If the topic is such an inflammatory one that the next thread also needs to be locked because of tons of CoC violations, then we'll typically just lock future threads as well, or ask the OP to not start it again. Someone would only catch a warning if we has specifically ASKED him/her to not start a new thread, and they basically gave up the finger and started another one anyway.
Irony, this thread has it. ( I say that mostly in jest- but in all honesty, it's indicative of the problems here ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:01:14 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... You have no idea... It's going to be spectacular... The surge is already starting, and it's 14 months until the election... The influx of idiots, mouth-breathing allies, DU trolls, and everything else is going to be unimaginable. Especially next summer. Might as well code in an emergency-ban button for established team members which can be activated in crisis... It's going to be needed, like handing out shotguns during a zombie uprising. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If nothing else, it's good timing to get this all in place as the election cycle ramps up. 2012 obviously was a huge influx, as well as 2009 when I joined. This cycle I have no doubt everyone is going to go apeshit. ... You have no idea... It's going to be spectacular... The surge is already starting, and it's 14 months until the election... The influx of idiots, mouth-breathing allies, DU trolls, and everything else is going to be unimaginable. Especially next summer. Might as well code in an emergency-ban button for established team members which can be activated in crisis... It's going to be needed, like handing out shotguns during a zombie uprising.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:04:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't say you were a shitty leader... I'm pretty sure that all the input I've provided has been disregarded, but it's your site and you can do that if you so desire. I probably will spend less and less time around here if things go as I believe they will in the future. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: All that is nothing more than shorthand to say It's a leadership problem. Sometimes leadership means letting people go. Sometimes it means fixing them. Sometimes it means working with the status quo and making things better. Sometimes it means believing in what you are doing when you put your heart into it, regardless of what some folks who can't let things go think. I value your input Josh, I honestly do, but I have faith that by slightly pissing everyone off from all sides of this mess, I am on the right path. Balance is hard to achieve and it takes sacrifice by everyone. We all give in a little so that we all gain a lot. So I may a shitty Chief in your eyes, but I can sleep at night regardless of the outcome. If this place ends or if it grows, it will do so based on what I thought was the best path for us all. I didn't say you were a shitty leader... I'm pretty sure that all the input I've provided has been disregarded, but it's your site and you can do that if you so desire. I probably will spend less and less time around here if things go as I believe they will in the future. I agree with this. I have nothing against you, Goatboy, you obviously love this creation and give it your heart, soul, time and energy. I'm not a dummy, I know what it took to build all this....I do respect that, even respect how hard your job is. Where you and I will probably always differ is I think the ownership & staff have created a harder job for themselves than need be had, and continually work against your own purpose with sometimes nonsensical rules and site structure...and in the process probably have driven off some very good people who were an asset to this site. With just a few tweaks to how these forums are moderated and accessed, you might have avoided that entirely and had a much easier climate to oversee. I've seen forums work without this discord and upstairs/downstairs brawling and rules on top of rules to correct this week's behavior. I know it's possible, even on a big forum with a wide and diverse membership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:14:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah. The only time I recall reporting was during clean up of the original Arfcockalypse. I'm always late to the COC's anyway. have 0 people on ignore too |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:16:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. The only time I recall reporting was during clean up of the original Arfcockalypse. I'm always late to the COC's anyway.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I must be doing it wrong, because I don't ever recall hitting the report button. If I did, it is long since forgotten. Yeah. The only time I recall reporting was during clean up of the original Arfcockalypse. I'm always late to the COC's anyway.
See, even more of a reason to have a medical forum, then we wouldn't have to worry about dicks in GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:17:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That you guys haven't banned CRC's retread account and made saying his name in his threads a lockable offense? But now seem to be ignoring it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You guys are missing the real problem here. That you guys haven't banned CRC's retread account and made saying his name in his threads a lockable offense? But now seem to be ignoring it? I chuckled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:24:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please let it go and allow me room to figure everything out. Some accounts are being discussed and final decisions being made. As part of our "new" system, I want feedback from all staff. This is one person who is being discussed, but that is all I am going to say. Actually I will also say this. The "free so and so" movements and pestering of account locks only makes things worse. If you have a concern like this, then email me. The best things to happen to a few recent account locks was how the email exchange went behind the scenes. These are matters best left to the people involved. You might not agree with the outcome, but it will be as fair as possible with ALL the facts taken into account, not just what information you might have. First let me say that I've always been impressed with your level of coding expertise that goes into AR15.com. No other bulletin board I belong to has this expansive interface. That being said, it has appeared to me that you are a code monkey and have largely stayed in the background. I mean, 18K posts since the boards inception?? That's not being real involved. I don't live on here 24/7, but you seem to only pop up for software changes and contests. Not to put too fine a point on it, but "word on the street" outside of here had it that around the turn of the century, after some family dust-up about how the site was run and where it was headed, your Father became the real day-to-day chief and that's why you weren't seen here as often. So what does the old man think of you taking the reins again? And what about the big names on Senior Staff that have followed Senior's lead and/or done it their way for years? When I wrote "irascible men" earlier I was serious. It appears one or several have some gravely short tempers, if current events and Mr. Smiley's ban thread are any indication. Can you make changes stick with Sr. Staff that have One Hundred Thousand posts to your 18K?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:44:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know... don't be a dick is pretty straightforward. Perhaps there are varying degrees of how severe of a dick one might be. But if you can't recognize what being a dick means, then you are so far out there on the socially autistic scale that losing your membership wouldn't have a dramatically negative effect on the site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think the staff need to define the malum in se violations that are cause for banning a person and the malum prohibitum violations that are cause for a temporary ban. We need to know where to put our feet on these shifting sands. "Don't be a dick" means a different thing to each person here. If we are forced to live under what the staff's version of being a dick is, they might tell us what that is. I don't know... don't be a dick is pretty straightforward. Perhaps there are varying degrees of how severe of a dick one might be. But if you can't recognize what being a dick means, then you are so far out there on the socially autistic scale that losing your membership wouldn't have a dramatically negative effect on the site. I think I like you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:46:46 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some folks seem to be under the delusion that Mod, Staff, and Sr. Staff operate with no review whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, If I warn or Ban a poster, I post a link to Staff forum, with link to the thread, Staff members give their various opinions. Issue is resolved, one way or another. There is no unilateral bannage.. It is all reviewed.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:48:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think the staff need to define the malum in se violations that are cause for banning a person and the malum prohibitum violations that are cause for a temporary ban. We need to know where to put our feet on these shifting sands. "Don't be a dick" means a different thing to each person here. If we are forced to live under what the staff's version of being a dick is, they might tell us what that is. Half of arfcom.
http://i.imgur.com/1tGq7B5.jpg I think the half that will push the "be a dick" button don't have any sweat involved. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
