No politics?

[dogdollar]

I am not sure I understand the new warning about no politics in the general discussion section of the gun politics site. I see very few posts here that aren't political.
<confused>
I thought that was the very purpose of this site - I also thought it was going very well.
Do we now have to worry about where we get "too" political, or the "wrong kind" of political, and subject to punishment and bans, on this satellite site created specifically for politics??
DD

[Frank]

Tim,

All I can do is refer you first to the House Area page (http://www.gun-politics.org/forumdisplay.php?f=1). If you look down the list of Forms and look at the entry for the General Discussion Forum, you'll see that the description of that Forum reads, "This is the area to use for discussions which do not fit in any other forum in this site. No political or legal discussions in here."(emphasis in original) And when you follow the link to the General Discussion page, at the top is this admonition: "Please use this area for non-political, non-legal discussions."

Then if you go to this board's Mission Statement (http://www.gun-politics.org/html.php?&file=mission_statement.htm ), it says, "Gun-Politics.ORG was started in April 2009,...to act as a discussion area for firearms-related legal and political issues." (emphasis added).

The Mission Statement also provides, "Use this site to discuss political and legal issues related ONLY to firearms. General political discussion, or discussion about other, non-firearms-related political or legal issues is NOT allowed."(emphasis added)

So those are the ground rules: no legal or political discussion in the General Discussion Forum, and this site is for discussion only of firearm related legal or political issues.

You're certainly free to raise the issue with John. But as of now, those are the ground rules John has specified for this site.

[John]

Let me clarify a few things:


In M1911.ORG Forums Site, we have several times seen the request, for a gun-related politics area, an area where people would be allowed to discuss legal and political issues related to firearms. This is what this site is all about.
I do not like to see this site become a "political discussion area" for anything not related to firearms. I do not want to see this site degrade to the level of discussing if abortions should be allowed or not, I do not want this site to be used to discuss if the financial aid given to banks was a right move or not. This is NOT what this site is about.
Keeping the scope of this site in mind, I have created the various forums in here. I tried to cover the various legal aspects of guns, gun ownership, etc, as best as I could, without any significant contribution from most of the people who wanted such a site. I am sorry to say that I am still not sure if opening this site was the right thing to do, given the general lack of willingness to participate in the discussions about how this site was supposed to be. However, I created this site for the simple reason that a lot of our members in M1911.ORG had founded concerns about what the new administration will bring, which will affect them.
I expect the Rules here, to be followed, just as the Rules are followed in M1911.ORG forums site. Unless your thread has a direct connection to firearms, guns, knives etc, I do not want to see it in here. This site is only about firearms-related and defense-related politics and laws.
The General Discussion area is for NON-political, NON-Legal discussions.
Finally, the "Other Political/Legal Issues" forum, is reserved for gun-related political and legal issues, which are NOT covered by the other forums, in the "Political/Legal Area" part of the site.

I hope the above clarify both the scope of this site and the use of the various forums.

Also, please keep in mind, that failure to abide with the established Rules, will result in Warnings being issued, just like in M1911.ORG Forums Site. I will not accept any anarchy in this site, just as I do not accept any anarchy in M1911.ORG.

[dogdollar]

Frank,
Thank.you, my friend, for the explanation....and I certainly do understand.
I will even go so far as to admit that I haven't read all of the mission statement, but nonetheless have somehow managed to participate, unscathed, for quite some time now with what I considered relevant and timely discussion.
I have also noticed that in that time that posts and threads of a political nature HAVE been allowed in this general discussion area, and have even been initiated and promoted by the moderators, thus establishing what could rightfully be construed as a pattern of acceptable behavior, particularly among those who haven't read the fine print.
That not withstanding, I will consider myself lucky to remain as a
member in good standing despite my inadvertent transgressions, and will take a seat on the sidelines and leave it to the remaining members to toe the line from this point forward.
Very best regards,
DD

[Carole-K]

I have also noticed that in that time that posts and threads of a political nature HAVE been allowed in this general discussion area, and have even been initiated and promoted by the moderators, thus establishing what could rightfully be construed as a pattern of acceptable behavior, particularly among those who haven't read the fine print.

As a moderator here I have to say that yes, some of us have participated in threads that have been threads that don't belong in certain areas. It is highly important to realize that we are all volunteers who are learning our jobs and clarifying the rules, the methods of enforcement of the rules and how to best perform our jobs.

I apologize for any confusion I may have created by my ill-advise participation in threads that have been in violation of the rules. It is never my intent as a moderator or as a member to do anything but follow the rules and uphold the mission and vision for the forum.

However, it is important to note that the fact that I, or any other moderator, have made a mistake by posting something or somewhere I should not have it is not an excuse or justification for someone else to do the same. Every member here was required to read the same rules when we agreed to membership and we are bound as individuals to follow those rules, no matter what another member has done.

John has recently clarified and reiterated some of the rules for the board and he has given his moderating staff our marching orders. I believe I can speak for all of the moderating staff when i say that we appreciate John's directions and we will all do our best to enforce the rules of the forum in that manner in which the boss has instructed.

[dogdollar]

I apologize for any confusion I may have created by my ill-advise participation in threads that have been in violation of the rules. It is never my intent as a moderator or as a member to do anything but follow the rules and uphold the mission and vision for the forum.

Fair enough, Carole...but the average member is held responsible to know the rules, and ignorance of them is not excuse enough to avoid a ban or a warning and points. I don't see anything in the Rules for Moderators that gives mods a pass, especially considering that their sole responsibility is to keep order.

Also, just curious, is it allowed to have two separate identities on this forum? Three? Four?

If you are going to make rules, enforce them. If not, you just look ridiculous.
DD - test,Dogdollar D, Mrs. Doggie-D,etc.

[Frank]

Tim,'

No one, as far as I know, has been banned, hit with any warning or charged any points. Thus far, we've handled things informally. And this thread should serve to clarify the ground rules.

[John]

Fair enough, Carole...but the average member is held responsible to know the rules, and ignorance of them is not excuse enough to avoid a ban or a warning and points. I don't see anything in the Rules for Moderators that gives mods a pass, especially considering that their sole responsibility is to keep order.

Tim I am sure that in your extensive career on the Internet, you have never posted in the wrong forum, right? Especially, you have never posted a message in someone else's thread, which was in the wrong forum, right?

Let me clarify one thing for moderators, in case some members here are new on the Internet forums and do not understand the role of a moderator.

A moderator is a member who is donating its free time and energy, to make sure that the site he/she is moderating is run as it should be run. In other words, they are the people who make sure that things are posted in the proper place, that members respect each other and do not engage in futile dog-fights, that make sure that everything is in order, according to the rules.

The fact that some moderators have posted in threads which were started in the wrong forum, does not justify those threads, nor does it make the moderators less worthy of the members respect. Modeerators are humans and they can miss something. Especially moderators of this site, which are new, with not too much experience. Just like members are humans and they can make a mistake. We are especially forgiving in this organization for members mistakes, and some members (more than others) should know that and recognize that. If we were not, some of our members (in the Forums Site) will be long gone.

We were especially forgiving in this site, since it is new and we didn't want to start bombarding our members with warnings and alerts. But from now on, the Rules will be enforced to the fullest. From now on, we'll issue alerts and warnings just like we do in the M1911.ORG Forums Site.

Just in case some of our members haven't understood it, we want a friendly community here, just like in M1911.ORG Forums Site. Those who can not play well with others, will be removed from both communities.

And Tim, no, members are not allowed to have dual identities. I do have dual identities in here (the other one can be either Lena or SV1CEC) but these are for testing purposes only. I believe you should be familiar with those identities from the M1911.ORG Forums Site.

[Carole-K]

Also, just curious, is it allowed to have two separate identities on this forum? Three? Four?

If you are going to make rules, enforce them. If not, you just look ridiculous.
DD - test,Dogdollar D, Mrs. Doggie-D,etc.

Since I am certain, Tim, that you are aiming this particular comment at my test account I will address this.

Like John I have created a test account. One that is clearly labeled as such - Carole-Test. It is a "user" account that I used to create test posts in the test forum in order to learn the message board software and how to use the moderator controls. I can test how to soft delete, delete, move and edit posts as well as how to issue alerts and warnings all without having to test the functionality on some unsuspecting user.

It is clearly not a "dual identity" as it is perfectly clear who the user is (my name, my real first name I might add) and the word Test. I could not have made it any clearer. Additionally, I have never used nor will I ever use my clearly labeled test account for anything other than tests which will be posted only in the test forum. When I am certain that I can use the functionality of the message board software without creating havoc for some unsuspecting user I will have the test account deleted.

Creating a test account was allowed by John so that the new moderators can get some experience in how the programing works (as this board, like the M1911 board, is functionally different from other message boards) without creating problems with existing user accounts by making a mistake in how we use the software.

In conclusion, owning a message board is not an expense-free proposition. It is also not as easy as some might like to believe. Running a board of the quality of M1911.org and gun-politics.org is costly in terms of both money and effort. The amount of complaining and whinging about John's efforts are absurd. If you don't like the way things are done try starting and running your own message board for a while. You might get an idea of just how hard John and his moderating staffs work.

[KCShooter]

Fair enough, Carole...but the average member is held responsible to know the rules, and ignorance of them is not excuse enough to avoid a ban or a warning and points. I don't see anything in the Rules for Moderators that gives mods a pass, especially considering that their sole responsibility is to keep order.

Also, just curious, is it allowed to have two separate identities on this forum? Three? Four?

If you are going to make rules, enforce them. If not, you just look ridiculous.
DD - test,Dogdollar D, Mrs. Doggie-D,etc.
Tim, I wasn't going to say anything but I keep coming back to this post. You have to give us all some time to adjust, a new forum is going to experience some growing pains.
No member has had any points or warnings assesed for posting in the wrong forum, but a couple got a friendly PM reminder.
However, to question Carole on her creating on a second ID obviously labeled as a test ID to perform a few tests of certain moderator features is absolutely ridiculous. It seems you are looking for something to complain about, and frankly I'm not sure what your point was when making that statement.

[dogdollar]

However, to question Carole on her creating on a second ID obviously labeled as a test ID to perform a few tests of certain moderator features is absolutely ridiculous.



The long and short of it is that my asking Carole about her dual identities, which is not only a curiosity but also an obvious transgression of the Rules as the members know them, is a far more legitimate question then your own question to me about my motives for doing so and then publicly labeling them "ridiculous" before giving me a chance to respond.
If it "seems" to you that I have sinister motives, then I am at a loss as to how to soothe your mind even IF I were the least bit obligated to do so.
It was a question asked and answered. Done.

This is a lot smaller and more tight-knit little community than we sometimes give it credit for. It's not at all unusual for a couple of members or moderators to lock horns on an issue, so long as some semblance of civility and respect is maintained. Carole is a big girl and a long standing member of these forums, and I am sure she understands this as well. What may look to you like an attack is sometimes nothing more than comments born from frustration, and a good moderator will know the difference.

Frustration because gun politics are born from individual ideologies which cannot always be characterized or defined simply by the way a person or group of people feel about gun laws specifically, and I personally feel like restricting the content to just that area gives us far too narrow a brush to use to thoroughly express the intentions we want our posts to have.

My own feeling about restriction on content is that it will stifle expression, to the point of frustration to the participants, and become an administrative nightmare as the moderators struggle to decide where the content crosses the line.

But we'll see.

Kind regards,
DD

[Rich-D]

I have not communicated with anyone concerning the issues in this thread. However, it is obvious that DD thought that something was wrong when Carole created a second ID on this site. Carol in turn gave a full and adequate explanation for her actions.

What I find worrisome are the descriptive adjectives and the harsh rebuke being doled out when a moderator or a member differs on an issue. I majored in management and have been in management for almost 50 years. Feedback from employees or volunteers is considered healthy for an organization. Feedback that would be counter productive is a signal to management that educational training needs to address that issue.

Asserting authority, cracking whips, and strict application of discipline is considered counter productive to the heath and welfare of an organization, especially a volunteer association. Cooperation is the goal! Of course when a person is uncooperative and does not respond to positive discipline, they must be cited and possibly removed.

This site was running fairly smooth and was highly productive. Now, it is off on a tangent, where John is not sure he did the right thing when he created the site. And folks are unsure of the sites future. Not a very healthy situation! And to think it was all over a misunderstanding where threads should be placed, and what they should or should not contain.

IMHO, Corrections in behavior or disputes that need to be settled can be attained via the PM System, not publicly criticizing the member or moderator. Unlike M1911.org which attracts members whose interests are simular, we have to be aware that the anti-gun folks would love to see us fighting among ourselves.

Everyone should take a deep breath, set our sights on the objectives of a Pro Gun Rights Association and stop fighting among ourselves.

Best of Luck!
Rich

[Old Fashioned]

Well, this basically is about posting in the wrong forum so I'll add my 2cents and hope I don't get into trouble. I got my hand slapped for posting in the wrong forum. Didn't get any points, just a friendly warning. After reading the rules again, I realize why it was considered the wrong forum. It happened, I'm sorry, but I am not complaining or trying to point at any one else. And yes, lets everyone calm down and get back to what concerns us all.

[Carole-K]

I think we've discussed this as much as needs to be discussed. Since things are starting to get personal I'm closing this thread. Anyone who wants to discuss anything in this thread further should take it to private messaging at this point.

Thank you,