Gilroy starts a thread for relevant discussion and it is quickly locked.
GreatWhite posts an entertaining video parody of our foolish PM and it is removed.
what’s the point of this forum anymore ?
Printable View
Gilroy starts a thread for relevant discussion and it is quickly locked.
GreatWhite posts an entertaining video parody of our foolish PM and it is removed.
what’s the point of this forum anymore ?
I come on here to get the truth.
Guess that's a good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
For me is to come and discuss outdoors related topics, learn new things and maybe share a story or too.
Moderators are here to facilitate the smooth running of this site.
Interesting that most if not all "censorship" concerns center around non outdoors topics.
Gilroy's thread was closed with rationale cited as it was a train wreck in the making.
GreatWhite post although it was at best satirical hyperbole and would of been ok the title contained derogatory terms deemed inappropriate for this site.
Censorship or just following the rules? .
One man's "censorship" is other man's "good moderation." We are guests here and there are rules. Follow them and enjoy yourself. Do otherwise and there may be consequences. It's not hard to understand.
What is there now about 1 maybe 2 posts a day? Use to be a lot more. In fact I can remember a time when most of the categories were going full tilt including the Off topic.
Now if we could just get that everywhere lolQuote:
Originally Posted by glen
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
It's sad and tragic,but,those days are long gone,now.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
This is 100 % true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Hovewer,the "one mens"moderation ,when deemed as overreach(right or wrong)is definitely driving people away.En masse...
That is another truth.
Third one is : if a restaurant has no guest coming in,to spend time and money in there......the restaurant may see grim future......
Well yes, fair point, the forum remains a good resource to learn things from other members, remain up to date on changing regulations and has plenty of good info.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Gil Roy’s thread was a valid topic which could certainly have been discussed respectfully. One moderator offered an opinion contrary to another and it was removed.
The thread containing a parody of our PM had a few letters in his name switched which reflected the feelings of a healthy segment of the electorate. Is that such an issue ? Do you think Trudeau is reading these posts and finding it upsetting ? Part of getting into politics means putting yourself out there and his actions have opened him up to public ridicule. After what he has put Canada (and gun owners in particular) through - he deserves everything he gets.
Most of the current moderation team seems to be out of touch with the demographic of the forum membership.
True to an extent. This forum isn't horrible but others have over stepped their boundaries. Latest round of the Twitter files show that the suppression between governments and their narratives. Doctors scientists and public health officials banned and censored for posting government documents. Labeled as misinformation that came right from the government or peer reviewed studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Where's the science in that? Science isn't owned but they think it is.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
I don’t think that there is much to be said about censorship. It appear to focus a conversation in the direction the censor wants it to run. It’s something of a denial that other reality might exist that the censor hasn’t got the knowledge and understanding to fathom. Back in university I came across many professor who provided you with material that they wanted you to feedback to them at examination time. Then however their was one professor who provide me with materials he wanted me to think upon, and then use them to assimilate new ideas or come up with the understanding of how they fit into the scheme of things He was indeed an inspiration to do some serious thinking rather than simply feed back to him what he had said. Censorship is really the death of doing innovative thinking. It is like a rhetorical question which call for a predetermine answer. .
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
The restaurant depends on customers for its income. This forum does not depend on members for its revenue. A better comparison might be house guests. Should a guest in my home make comments I regard as offensive they will be warned and should they continue told to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
Critical thinking is always welcome, and productive.
It's when people lose their abilities to critically analyse things, or become disrespectful of others, or their point of view.
Eg. Gilroy, by and large has differing political views than many. However, he tends to present them respectfully, most of the time. It is usually those who disagree with him who tend to overstep, and break the rules, who then cry censorship...
One example only. There are lots more.
Old Army doctrine which applies.
If you cannot effectively defend your position, you should be prepared to alter, or abandon it...
Now insert the words articulate and respectful, and it applies universally.
You are right-i used a wrong comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Now-who visits relatives/friends ,if the relative(s)in question are much into "i regard"...........
No ofence Bluebulldog, and all the respect for the Moderators doing the unthankful job...but ever since the "crackdown"happened...more then one instances we saw,moderator (s) engaging into a conversation.Which is fine-so the rules go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Hovewer-how the Forum thinks, a run of the mill Forum member will carry out a serious exhange of opinions (respectfully)with a moderator-while feeling the power coming from there?
More then once the verdict came in a way of-this is the way it is(no Forum rule topics-just any conversation)
How a Forum member can distinguish between opinion or use the authority?
Even if we say it can be done-real life is different.
In the interest of transparency. Most members should know that not only do the moderators tend to discuss things in our own sidebar before actioning anything. But by and large we tend to avoid waiting into some topics simply because they'll need to be moderated. I personally have received warnings as a moderator for some of my posts, and I have accepted the criticism presented by my fellow mods, it's not just members who get flagged.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
One overwhelming message which I have been trying to convey over the past few months, as I was part of the "crackdown", was that while we have an active participant level, of good-minded outdoors folk, these forums are not closed to the public. We have to remember that this is not somebody's living room and we're having a closed conversation. Members of the general public can Wade in and see what's being discussed and we do not want to contribute any ammunition, or any perceptions that the members on here are anything but respectful, and decent outdoors men and outdoors women.
My $0.02 FWIW.
As an aside, I actually pushed to have the off topic section completely removed.
That's true , but also true on most if not all forums. Social media sites have taken over forums we are used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
PS Some really excellent posts on here. Thanks.
I'm in the middle of a long podcast called the strange death of the university. It's about the sdg's and how they plan on moving forward just another bunch of mandates and goals lol. The problem is its already happening and is being implemented all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
This is a good forum for its stated purpose. I get a lot of good information from like-minded people.
This was the first forum I joined, before that I thought I was some odd-ball getting up at 4AM to walk through a coyote/tick infested forest and climb up a tree (back then it was only 10ft) and wait for hours freezing and hoping that some fury animal would walk close enough to me that I could shoot it with a sharp pointy stick and drag it back home like a Neanderthall cave man. After joining this forum I have realized that's not changed, just I am not the only one like that.
LOL LOL
Well I think you have this dead wrong. The forum is NOTHING without its members and their input, unless you like reading all moderator started threads. Nobody is going to pay to advertise on a forum board if nobody is accessing the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Just as this forum is not closed of to members of the public so also is a show like Anglers and Hunters. What exactly are OTHER members of the public thinking about the OOD folks when they watch a show on a Saturday morning in the year 2022 where only a single image of a none white person appears for two seconds and the rest of the show is all white. Hence the initial thread and guess what its being discussed again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
I really do not care if it was closed as my intention was to notify the authors of the show they may appear to out of touch with the demographic changes in society. Pretty sure I achieved my goal.
OMG I cannot believe Gilroy and I agree on something again:joker:. I was thinking the same same.
I must be getting old and going senile.
But Gilroy is correct the forum and the site is nothing with out the forum members and as I have said, so many were chased away that the site is almost dead.
Many left the forum during Covid as they were fed up (they were not kicked off) and some of these people were big contributors.
How many new threads were started yesterday? How many Christmas threads were there, heck 3 years ago there would be at least 4 running into several pages each. This year just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
No offence and no challenge Sharon-but i belive this is just an easy Cop Out .Not for You personally-please do not take offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
The Social Media threat was here for years -but he Forum Nosedived just at and around the Crackdown.Less then a year!
We have lost MANY members,and many were not the disrespectful/manipulative/annoying PITA ones.
Plus-we somehow always protect the "image"of the forum and the" image" of the hunters-yet(as far i know)the Off Topics section is not accessible to the Public.
And there is where most of the squabble happened.
Hard not to "read"into all the happenings as NOT being a censorship-NOT being the protection of authority at "any "cost -and NOT to "shake off" of some members.
Open to interpretation I guess. Lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
.................................................. ...Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
I hear you; no offence taken. It is complicated.
All I can say is members should read the rules. Click on the small words at the top of this page that say
"community". Under that click on "rules" and read to the bottom. Those are the rules that members agree to when they join.
When moderators sign on , they agree to enforce the rules no matter how unpleasant that may be and no matter if friends may be lost. That's the hardest thing for me as I have been on here a very long time and have many friends or did have. :)
Of course the interpretation of the rules can vary with each mod. That why any possible warning or infraction is discussed with all 4 mods and often the admin. Then a decision is made as it applies to the rules. No , we don't always get it right.
I'm a mod on another gundog forum. We have only had to remove one member in 8 years. I've never had to give a warning or infraction there. The difference? .... We have no "Off Topic/ politics section". As BBD said, I also don't think we should have an off topic/politics section. There are all kinds of social media sites where those not hunting nor fishing topics can be discussed.
When moderating is done that you don't agree with, contact a mod to discuss it, but don't call them a $%^&* and expect to get an answer. :)
I was just browsing the Off Topic section. I notice there isn't a lot of action there anymore,either.......sure nothing like there used to be. If you go back even just to posts listed in 2020,there's a very marked difference between then and now with the greatest drop off in the last year. Covid......maybe? The Great Crackdown......more than likely? Who knows,it's definitely open to interpretation,but,one thing's for sure. Whatever has changed hasn't been for the better.....not by a long shot.
Well have to agree with your signature.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
"It's better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction."
Posters complaining about the lack of interesting subject matter can address that issue by making interesting posts while avoiding conspiracy theories about big pharma, WEF, the NWO or similar topics.
100% AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Best post today! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
None of the moderators has really offered a satisfactory explanation of why the two threads I mentioned were removed. Perhaps the word “censorship” was a bit strong, but this forum seems to be steered away from any meaningful debate about anything that might possibly be deemed offensive to any minor part of society.
A lot like the rest of society I suppose….keep your head down, don’t ask questions, stop talking about important things and don’t stir the pot….while the country continues its slide.
silencing debate by the 90% to avoid offending the 10% isn’t a winning strategy.
Here lies the problem. When given a response that doesn't fit the me-centric ideology keep on hounding the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
Quite simply its been observed when dealing with topics pertaining to personal values there is an inability to conduct a respectful debate where both sides in the end come to a mutual respect for their opponent and can come to a notion of you do you and I'll do me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
It's not a conspiracy when it completes a full circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdbuff
Where is our agenda coming from? who is Canada partners with in the planing to take our guns away ? The wef lol kinda funny right.
Government of Canada already has it written on paper .
No conspiracy it's all ritten in black and white on the government of Canada website that they are partnered with the UN with the agenda.
Now who is the UN partnered with to FastTrack the agenda ? Again it's ritten on paper. That will be your answer and it's mentioned above lol.
Canada then the wef no connection at all lol.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...9e234d3e85.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...1fe9b28c30.jpg
It would appear the owners of this website have concluded content of this type does not contribute to the site as they have envisioned it which is their right as owners. There are myriad other sites where full discussions can be had on this and related subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
Except that it’s hardly “me-centric”. There are quite a number of knowledgeable outdoorsmen that have left this forum because the “great crackdown” has stifled conversation that is in line with the views of the majority. Go ahead and take a poll of Trudeau’s approval rating within the outdoors community - I imagine you’ll find that the vast majority would applaud the video that GW posted. It’s not “hate speech” toward any definable group - it’s political parody which most would agree is deserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
I agree with you. Had a chuckle with the video even harder at those who seriously believed the hyperbole. Actually in the mod discussion I was debating to keep it up. That was until it was brought to my attention the author of the vid choose to leave the realm of satire to disrespectful banter by the choice of title. Can't believe we have to repeat yet again respectful debate good, disrespectful redirect bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
Why is it so hard of a concept? (rhetorical question answer not needed or wanted)
I actually post quite a bit in fact probably one of the most prolific posters. However if all posts were to drop say to 1 post a month would this be much of a site?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
I think we would get back those people who Fish and Hunt and are so tired of politics, but hey, ya never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
You may have achieved your goal.....then again,maybe not. You might have had a larger impact had you written to A&H staff personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I totally agree with Badenocch. If people start interesting and/or relevant topics and people who comment follow some simple rules and keep on topic, we will have a better site.
rodmcd
I think following simple rules is a NO problem since the Crackdown.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodmcd
Yes-occasionally the odd post comes in "raw"but we were told many times-to man up,so the "raw"posts,as long as follow rules,are part of life.
A whole lot bigger problem is the demise of threads-but that is just facts of simple mathematics.
Which is: more members=more versatility, more interesting threads,more replies,more traffic.
That is where the problem lies.
There are many members encouraging other members to start threads ,get engaged,make the Forum lively yet again.
There are many of them though, very seldom start their own threads ............
Not sure how that works?
Not targeting anyone in particular..........just an observation!
Have they come back yet? I doubt they are coming back and almost all of them were also involved in the politic side as well.
Considering politics are now a big part of the firearms society, by trying to squash it on this forum you are contributing to the demise of firearm ownership.
I am curious as to how many on here complained about my video I posted, that I was given a demerit and then cited again for disagreeing with the mod. It was probably the lowest of the low I have ever seen on here. I have been cited for things in the past and if you check with the site I have taken my lumps when they were fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutSlayer
And this is precisely the kind of false equivalency argument that were trying to avoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
1. There is no censorship happening. Should members post in a respectful way, and present cogent arguments with valid points, they are not moderated.
2. There are lots of firearms discussion occurring where no moderation is needed. If posters stayed in their lane, and could manage to argue without becoming insulting, or attempting to impugn others, all is well in the world.
3. There are lots of venues for firearms discussion and the politics surrounding it. I'm not going to redirect traffic, but we know most of them....what becomes tiresome is having the same people Wade into a thread with the same narrative over and over again. Contributing nothing, and then digressing into mud slinging with other members because they don't share the exact same views, or might actually present a counter argument...and the parties then can't effectively understand that the discussion is no longer productive. ( See off topic section around covid-19....some threads over 30-40 pages of the same bunk, delivering no value other than a sounding board for someone's bruised ego.)
A support of your argument would be is we were heavily moderating the guns for sale posts...
In my opinion, which I believe is the most important on this site, the big problem is people feeling like they should control others opinions and be able to not just debate differences, which is good for the forum but have others stifled and shut down.
This is not at all directed at the mods.
This is just the new wave of the minority thinking they should control what they disagree with by whatever means possible.
If you don't like something that is said, state your piece intelligently and expect a response without name-calling or insults hurled back.
Put OT as well as the Political pages under an apply to mods to gain access. This should keep some persons from feeling hurt or fatally violated.
This is a good site with lots of good info, but much of society has changed I believe in a bad way to have a huge sense of self entitlement that some believe they can force their ideals and beliefs on others to conform.
Whether this is political, social media, video games or just a lack of compassion I'm not sure but it is not an improvement from life 10 years ago.
Just 1 guys opinion here, mine, which I think counts, just not for alot.
John
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
To be correct you were given a warning for posting material deemed inappropriate as a curtesy to inform you why it was removed. The demerit point was issued after several attempts to explain why it was removed and the inability to accept and respect the decision of the Mod team.
great response as this is exactly what's being asked and strived for. I believe this has been a road block for many "guest" as often wondered why there will be some 2000 plus guest at times when there are 25-40 members present.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjyb
[QUOTE=johnjyb;1207879..............that some believe they can force their ideals and beliefs on others to conform.
[/QUOTE]
BINGO!!!!! Besr comment to date....nails it.:goodstuff:
I am not unappreciative of the moderators efforts, but I still believe that we have reached an unfortunate point when the T-word (re-arranging the first 4 letters of Trudeau’s name) results in a thread being removed. Many Canadians are more offended by Trudeau himself.
And re: Gilroy’s thread about the demographics of the OOD show…..we SHOULD NOT be afraid to discuss it. Moderate hateful comments yes, but allow reasonable discussion
Than work in a respectful manor to remove him. Moderation of the post was not meant as an endorsement of Trudeau but an effort to maintain respectful dialogue. A courtesy that will be extended to any political leader or party.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
As stated when the thread was closed, what is there more to say than if you have a concern with the show address it with them. The thread was not removed so that those who read it can ponder the concern and discuss it if they wish in their own circle. As history shows threads of this nature degenerate quickly into back and forth train wrecks were the message is left in the dirt. Closing the thread early kept the concern in the fore front while limiting a tendency to cause hostility between members.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
Which is why I signed up for the thankless job of Moding.
So rumble videos are aloud? If not why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Gw video was removed because of the user who created it?
Rumble was only banned here after the media said it was bad lol. Said it's full of disinformation but much of the information posted on it is just suppressed information that other places censored. Platforms that are pushing a narrative rather than truth Twitter as an example YouTube, Facebook, Google the media.
Some members did infact leave because of that ,when they couldn't post from a free speech platform. Rather than a censored media or platform.
What's happening in mariupol lately anything? Some would be amazed of the progress happening burned out buildings being torn down daily and a new city is emerging. But it's not what they want so it's not being reported on that's our media for ya lol.
Not starting an agreement but some things are censored and people did leave because of it.
I'm really surprised that rumble was removed before infowars lol.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
1. The propensity for people to seek out any source in support of an argument without backup is a problem. As is Rumble. As a source, or a platform, they are not consistent, and they do not moderated their content. So no...Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
2. Unless you want to figure out a way to either pay moderators, or provide more bodies to to the job...it is far easier to simply eliminate a cesspool of questionable info. ( Not all Rumble is the case, but without verification or requiring source, it's an easier call).
3. Ask GW. Last I checked, we have been over this.
Yes, you are starting an argument...but as long as it's respectful it's perfectly fine.
However, if you're going to make assertions as to why others have left ( or being removed)...that's a bit of a problem. You clearly have zero issue with sharing info that hasn't been verified, and choose to believe what you wish. I respectfully you look up Confirmation Bias...
For the record..the Great Clean Up, involved many users being kicked. If not for conduct, then for how they reacted to the mods when issued infractions, but choose to believe how you will.
It does make it easier to moderate ,but it also shuts down real news outside of what the mainstream isn't talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Including government discussions and things going on around the world to open up some discussions.
It's not all bad but I understand the decision to why.
Thanks.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
".....how they reacted to the mods...." to the unaffiliated guest and past members (on the surface) sure can look like authoritarianism and censorship overreach in and of itself,though,can't it? Respectfully,that's not a good look. There has to be a better way of moderating that doesn't appear biased and ham-fisted. Having said that,I'm fresh out of ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Care too give it a shot?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
To those who complain how unfair it is I'd say walk a mile in these shoes.
Add your voice to the mod team if you feel its biased.
Make the change you want to see or accept the way it is.
Be part of the solution
If you can't be bothered than follow the rules and accept the tough decisions that are made to keep the forum running smooth.
I for one am enjoying the cessation of the constant cries of trolling that used to plagued this site.
No I believe a open and free discussion would yield many and various opinions which have now been denied to the producers of the show?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
As the posts were going some folks agree with my view and some did not, this is very healthy discussion as all sides views are looked at.
Moderators HAVING A CRYSTAL BALL and deciding what threads MIGHT degenerate into a train wreaks is IMHO a bit of an over reach and stifles opinions which might be very valid and in that thread might have actually helped the OOD and Anglers and HUNTERS PRODUCE A BETTER SHOW.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
So that gets denied to the producers and to make the whole affair worse a Moderator re open's the CLOSED THREAD and injects HIS OPINION as the final word.
WHAT MORE IS THERE TO SAY IN YOUR OWN WORDS- I don't know?
I have no stake in this-and have zero clue what happened behind closed doors between GW and the Authorities-but the simple statement of issuing demerit point to a member just because he was unable(which is very human in nature-especially if one has grounds to believe, one is violated one way or another) and did not respect the decision(why one has to respect a bad decision upon himself-can accept, or not-but respect on "this ? level") speaks the language of "complaints"many former and current members "dare"to raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
After all-even if there were grounds to issue a demerit-would in not show "understanding"and "teamwork"by letting the things go?That time?
Just like that....
It would go a distance,and perhaps show the opposite of a heavy hand .
Jus my 2 cents
personally speaking you and I read that thread differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Can you honestly say the first three posts can be considered respectful debating?
From there do you believe the conversation would improve or degrade as the yes/no factions entrenched themselves?
The producers of the show may or may not have benefit of those opinions expressed here, the only certain way is to discuss the matter with them directly.
So with no further benefit to the forum and uncertain benefit too the producers it was closed before it became toxic.
I'd understand if it was removed but its there for self reflection and given direction on how best to act upon those convictions.
Guess you haven't gone back to review the thread. Even mods aren't above the team. The matter was discussed and found to volatile even amongst the team so the decision was made to close it with the most appropriate guidance possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I think the author of this thread is very accurate as my second last post has been deleted and I received another demerit point.
Its always easy to be an armchair critic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
How would you handle someone that after explaining several times why the decision was made and upheld and continues to badger the issue?
I did not REVIEW the closed thread as the matter was at an end for me. But now having re viewed the thread I agree a moderator should not be above the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
And in all fairness. I weighed in without realizing the thread was locked. I took my lumps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Sorry to hear that, did you lose any demerit points. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Because it was an honest mistake with no harm intended. Serves me right by not noticing the darn lock icon when I opened up my screen....
I have been issued warnings / infractions when I have been less than fair however.
So please do carry on...
FFF you also insinuated that it was illegal to call Trudeau names, which it is not. My post was done in fun. I should not even have had a warning, at best an email just saying were taking it down as we don't want people calling the Prime Minister names.
** Please not I have not posted any of our conservation as I believed it to be private between myself and you the Mod.
We have a process when items are moderate. Post reported, decision made, action taken. The warning was decided upon as it sends the pm just saying were taking it down as we don't want people calling the Prime Minister names without penalty. This process is used to maintain a record of interactions with members.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Your post was balanced and realistic. Nothing offensive and non-inflammatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Shall we add “WOKE” to the list of swear words and get the soap ready for our mouths ? (Grin)
But in the interest of fairness, mods shouldn't post on locked threads, effectively having the last word....it can be perceived as an abuse of power. ( And apparently was).Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
Well , if nothing else this has been a good discussion to pass the holidays.
Happy New Year to all ��
No offence-but why you are thinking i am acting as an armchair critic?Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
I tried to offer a solution, and also highlighted that i do not know all the details.
Even the Cops many times let the driver go off the hook/cut the speed to save demerit points to a driver-in good faith/good will/showing that we are all human/to make a point that cops are not always out to get someone..........
I am not sure how to answer Your second question anymore.
You are right cops will do that if the offender has a clean record and is contrite, understand, and respectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
However if the offender already has a history or is disrespectful, argumentative, and defiant what outcome would you expect?
No different here with the option of warning or demerit points.
Hope that clears it up for you.
More and More FFF you seem to be defending yourself against everyone, maybe it's time to look in the mirror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
No, just a few that seem not to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Never was a fan on soft policing where those that don't follow the rules expect to slide while in effect punishing those that choose to follow them.
Strange as seems to be the theme championed about on other threads.
If I was more computer literate and if I was more middle-of-the-road politically, I would certainly be tempted to try,but,I'm not,so,in all fairness,I'll sit back quietly unless I'm sure I can offer honest critique with the very best of intentions. Thanks for the offer,though. Happy New Year.:moose:Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
This is my opinion on the matter. If the forum is going to have a off topic section, then off topic post should be acceptable. I often don’t agree with Gilroy, but I still appreciate being able to see his opinions on matters. Also unless I’m wrong this forum is not owned by the moderators so if you think there over stepping contact OOD. Btw I have nothing against the mod squad even though I disagree with there recent censorship. I was unable to respectfully disagree with Gilroy because the thread was locked. Lastly (kinda repeating a point I made already) unless I’m wrong the mods don’t own this site, so how does the illustration of house guests make any sense?
Yes it is however rule 2 statesQuote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
2. Controversial, religious or political threads deemed inappropriate or needlessly provocative will be removed without warning.
actually contact admin https://www.oodmag.com/community/mem...6989-MeghanOOD with your concernsQuote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
To be correct the thread wasn't censored but closed to keep from getting too toxic and be available for reflection by the members.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
I can understand your disappointment at not being able to express your opinion however I might suggest a better use of your time would be contacting OOD directly and expressing your opinion with them as that would have a better effect and or affect.
No we don't own the site but can think of us mods as indentured servants, maids, butlers, caretakers, and sanitation engineers. So if you want to help us out try and keep the house clean by adhering too the rules of the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
https://www.oodmag.com/community/sho...-Rules-Conduct
As I see it, the mods on this site are in a similiar situation to any of us hunting on land owned by others and being named as an agent to actually act as an owner and enforce some of the owners rules such as trespassing on any persons who venture on said property.
Treat it like you are the owner, with respect the way you believe the owner would behave.
The owner always has the right to revoke your privileges at any time they should choose if they disagree with anything you might do or say, but until that time treat the property with the same care you would your own.
John
Johnyb-great comparison, with one point missed , which seems somehow "ignored "(lack of better words)by many ,in these kind of suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjyb
The agent for the owner is a "given "position.Landowner owns the property-agents acts on trespassers .
There will be property and likely even trespassers long after the owner "closed "his business,and sold it.
Forum(s) does exist for two reasons-owner wants to run one,and people WANT to be on the forum(s).
At the point when people lack "attending and participating" ,the forum is done, regardless what the owner would like to do.
Some excellent posts here, especially near the beginning , but we think everything that needs to be said has been said now.
It' s a new year; let's get back to fishing and hunting. :)
PS Not meaning anything negative about your post GBK. You make an excellent contribution on here.