Taking Sides

Forum rules
Thought I'd do something constructive while drinking my morning coffee, so I decided to write a little something every day I'm not out in the woods. Just keep in mind, this is stuff I'm writing before I've finished my morning coffee
Post Reply
User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Taking Sides

#1

Post by sarge » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:01 am

I remember an Internet Discussion site I was a member of that "experimented" with allowing discussions about guns. There was a lot of good discussion about carrying options while in the woods, survival guns, and the like. The problem was that a few trolls who would come into those discussions and start flame wars. The Forum ended up saying the experiment "failed" because of the "controversy" and "friction."

In other words, they sided with the Antigun folks or, at the very least, did not punish or deter thier bad behavior and gave them what they wanted, which was to silence any talk about guns.

That's why the Bunker is set up the way that it is. Both sides have the right to say what they want about what some folks say are controversial subjects, but we're not going to put up with any trolling or trouble making. However, instead of banning these folks we've given them a place to say what they want to say, that way we don't take sides---just keep the peace while honoring the rights of both sides.


Let me know what you think about that.


You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
gmcpcs
Reactions:
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Midland, TX
Hammock: DIY WB Clone ATACS
Tarp: DIY Hex ATACS FG
Suspension: Cargo strap loop, BN
Insulation: PLUQ, Down, DIY
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides

#2

Post by gmcpcs » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:39 am

Well,

I have to agree that having a place with a chance to voice sides in opinion is a noble and great idea. However, I know also that the "supposed anonymity" of the internet forum has brought out the absolute worst in people (Just read the comments to opinion articles on the newspaper webs!)

I think your concept of a balanced approach may be a "Let's see what happens" experiment again...

But, the all powerful post movers can just take those topic ruiners who choose to argue spuriously and call names vs using rational and reasonable arguments to disagree into a "Trolls and Flamers" dump ground...right?

I am waiting to see, and have high hopes for rational discussion :-) I think the forum rules you've all laid out speak for themselves. And that's my opinion!

Take it easy,
gmcpcs
Texas will again lift it's head and stand among the nations. It ought to do so, for no country upon the globe can compare with it in natural advantages.
Sam Houston
"...But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
Joshua 24:15b

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides

#3

Post by sarge » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:30 am

Well----

I will be moving posts. If someone comes into an otherwise peaceful discussion about Guns, God, or the Military and tries to start a flame war, those posts will be moved into the "I think people shouldn't be talking about......" Forums.

We won't be taking away thier right to post thier opinion, but we won't tolerate attempts to silence people through creating a disturbance with bad behavior.

I think the more intelligent among them will see how things are set up and not even bother to try, knowing in advance that they are not going to be rewarded.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Taking Sides

#4

Post by Scott » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:56 am

Being a bit on the conservative side, but having friends and family that span the entire spectrum of religion, philosophy, life-style (Mormon Bishops to same gender marriages to communist druggies), I totally support a place for everyone to express their opinion while not stepping on my right to do the same. Friendly discussion is great. Trolls and flames are not. I think speaking out in support of something regardless of what side is much more productive than speaking out against things. Example, " I support gun control because I think guns cause trouble " would go over much better than "guns are evil and anyone who owns one is an idiot".

I am impressed with the balance and thought going into the setup of this forum. Equal 'rights' for all. Not just those that agree with a certain mindset.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Taking Sides

#5

Post by sarge » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:44 am

Thanks, Scott;

We're trying to get back to the way things were imagined they should be a few years ago before greed and agendas took precedence over equality, friendship, and fairness.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
SGT Rock
Reactions:
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:20 pm
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Taking Sides

#6

Post by SGT Rock » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:59 pm

I am certainly on the gun rights and carry rights side of the argument. But in a thread once on WhiteBlaze I was accused of taking people's constitutional rights away and being anti gun for simply telling a novice hiker that had no real carry experience what to consider and what the law stated in Tennessee and North Carolina.

I think part of the problem with discussions of guns, dogs on the trail, politics, religion, or a few other "sensitive" topics are people with an agendas. If you come here to learn and exchange ideas and allow that there are opinions and sometimes the opposite opinion has a valid point of view they could be coming from you will be OK. But if you have an agenda, well it will no longer be a discussion.

Image

After years of trying I gave up trying to please everyone. It will not work. And with that I also found that the best way to censor things to meet your tastes is to avoid commenting, or maybe even reading things that will piss you off. Unfortunately in this age it is nearly impossible to get people to do this:
Image
No Sniveling!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Taking Sides

#7

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:35 pm

First post in this thread in a month, Sgt.Rock!

I think it was in another thread but on a similar topic, I tried to respond but lost the post in cyberspace. So I am going to try again:

It may be a good idea at least in theory to have special areas to move posts to, and also to let anyone have virtually any opinion and publicly state it. You know, just like with free speech and all that. Of course the problem with any forum that is meant to cover a single subject like hammocks and things related to hammocks, is keeping things peaceful. No one wants to listen to a bunch of ranting and raving and a hostility and argument, when the main reason they came to a place like this(Or the other place) is to talk about and learn about hammocks.

Now I felt at the other place it always ended up the same way over the years: one group of people(Maybe even a relatively small group of people?) end up getting their way every time, and silencing the more traditional group. Which might even be the larger group in numbers. So I never understand why it can't be the opposite, if you indeed have to choose one way or the other. Why not choose the more traditional route? Especially if that is determined to be majority view? If you have to silence somebody, why not for a change silence the nontraditional voice? Does it ever actually go in that direction?

But, back to the concept of not silencing anybody. And the possible(actually probable) problems it can cause. What about this approach: people can say pretty much what they want, except for expressing hostility. For that, simply have a zero tolerance. So let's say there's a special forum or area set aside where I can discuss what might be a good weapon for those who choose to carry weapons on the trail. Now, I am perfectly willing to forgo the right not to be offended when it comes to somebody else who might want to chime in to say " I really don't think you should be carrying a gun on the trail or talking about it", if they don't decide to just not participate. And maybe then they even spell out their reasons for that belief. Okay, I can put up with that. But people can tell pretty quick when the post turns nasty. Any sort of name-calling, but really you can tell in other ways also. Why not have the moderators simply stepping in as soon as some hostility is detected– just leave it up to the moderators to detect hostility– and take action. They don't have to take action by closing the thread. Simply immediately delete the hostile threads, with or without an explanation.

So what would be wrong with that approach? So if I wanted to start a thread discussing the book of Ezekiel, there's probably a few people that would piss off royally. So those people can either just stay away from that thread, or can come in and tell me I should not be discussing that, or maybe tell me that I've got it all wrong. Then I could say, sorry, I disagree I think I've got it all right, and I really desire to discuss this with anyone who is interested. But as soon as someone says "You are a moron" or anything close to that, they are simply deleted. Now instead of having to depend on the moderators to determine what subjects can be discussed, now we simply depend on the moderators to cut off any hostility immediately.

Will that not work? I suppose if you had a whole lot of hostile people around, it could make a lot of work for the moderators, and that wouldn't be good. However, the majority of people don't have a need to verbally attack other people just because they have different opinions on what ever the subject areas. I know I don't. I am capable of either staying out of a discussion, or remaining polite while in the discussion. I'm certain there are many other people around just like me in that regard. So, it should become evident pretty quickly which members are prone to verbally attack people they disagree with. So after two or three incidences of ad hominem attacks, someone who has now been identified as being in the hostile group(and has had several deletes) can be banned either temporarily or permanently, or permanently after some temporary ban if they come back and pick up with their hostilities yet again. It seems to me like that would work pretty well, as opposed to having an ever-increasing list of things that can't be talked about.

One other approach: if it is insisted that certain things dare not be mentioned, then I think it's only fair to make the ban total. In other words, you can talk about hammocks and things obviously related to them, and not one other subject. Don't just ban my little scripture reference in my signature, but ban discussion of automobiles and how to fry chicken correctly or how to meditate and do yoga. Because, I'll say it again, it seems like the banned subjects only fall into one group. I guess that group would be things that are called traditional, for lack of a better phrase.

Because this is how banning just the "traditional" subject matter ended up feeling to me. Early on I saw that religion or proselytizing was forbidden subject matter, even in OT, although from the very beginning little hints about what a person believed was allowed in the signatures, as long as there were no actual discussions. Okay, I put up with that, After all it's not like I have to go to that forum in order to discuss that subject with people. Even if there is an off-topic area we're almost everything is allowed except that subject matter. But then came the ban of all things military. I almost left at that time, because it just seemed sort of outrageous that in the USA a member could not say " happy veterans day" to other members for fear of offending some anti-military or anti-USA type. It seemed to me that if anyone needed to shut up, it would be those who were anti-US military. You have a choice to make in those situations. You can tell US citizens who have served in the military that they must not talk about that subject because it irritates some minority out there. Or, you can tell the minority to suck it up. For me which one to choose is extremely obvious, especially if you're forum is mostly made up of US citizens who hike on US soil for the most part, and who have either been in the military or have and support close relatives who have been in the military. But nope, guess who had to shut up? Rather than just shutting down somebody who might come in having something hostile to say about that subject, the large numbers who would like to thank a veteran must shut up. So that almost drove me away, but I sucked it up again. Then after a couple years came the gun thing. I sucked it up again.

Then for various other reasons I found myself not posting near as much as I had been in the past, and I actually had a month or two period of inactivity. As soon as I came back, with my first post, I was contacted to be notified of the changes that taken place while I was gone. So my little signature that had been the same for seven or eight years, and which caused no problems that anyone had ever told me about, was now banned. And the thread where all this had taken place had been removed so I cannot even read it. I must say the moderator who contacted me was extremely nice and I actually felt like he hated to have to be telling me about this, but still there it is. But not being able to read the thread, I could not even know who the people were who had complained and got yet another thing banned. So instead of them being offended by my Bible verse in my signature, and possibly not participating because of that, it was now the opposite. It occurred to me that there were some people out there who did not like me or what I stand for. Because that's really what it amounts to: if my little Bible verse offends them that much, then most likely I am also going to offend them. And I would really prefer not to even be communicating with people who are so intolerant. But guess what, I don't even know who they are! So the result for me has been a huge decrease in my desire to participate. Which is a real shame for me, because I really enjoyed it over the years.

Bill
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “The Morning Briefing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest