[DISCUSSION] Forum Rules

[phillyd2]

Let me see if I can better explain my point of view in terms more may understand.

Section 21 of the PA Constitution clearly states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

So in a general we can consider Section 21 as the RULE in regards to guns.

However in real life we are questioned many times trying to exercise our right. As far as I'm concern the Rule stated above is completely meaningless. Instead of breaking daily this rule a more honest approach would be to repeal Section 21.

The sign of the truly insane is that they lie to themselves and then believe the lie.

Section 21 is a lie. Plain and simple. Those that believe we have unquestioned gun rights are insane. Just saying something is true does not make it true.

Now to our happy discussion, especially in reply to Dan and others. A rule can not have it both ways. For a simplest of examples: the use of curse words. What kind of rule do you write that allows it as long as it is not used too much? Do we get a monthly allocation? 15 F and 10 S words? Can we trade allocation among members? Can they be sold? $ 1 for every F word?

The same can be said about so called Flame Wars. When does it become a flame and when is it just a general disagreement about a topic. If somebody is being a ass, can we not say so with fear of offending them?

We can go on and on. One man's jerk is another man's insightful thinker (or at least I hope so for my sake).

If the above can not be answered in a clear way then two things will happen:

1. Nobody will not know the rules and when one is punished for breaking them others will scream favoritism since we will have no rule standards that can be enforced uniformly and fairly.

2. Any rule that is not clearly written AND clearly enforced will end up like our poor Section 21, completely meaningless.

Again, I side with No Rules but in that case the offended must be informed of this and Dan must accept the risk that some more sensitive members may leave. If this place turns into just Dan's basement where all are judged based on his mood at the time, then I will join the sensitive members out the door.

Also for the record, I am not the one who stated the rule thing. I was also not the one demanding rules with threats of leaving if matters were not taken care. I have never PM or emailed Dan or CR about the need for rules or complaining about any other member. So far I have not been offended by any post that I have seen on this forum. So far no member has offended me or treated me with any disrespect. In other words, the problem is not me having a issue with this forum.

I post this and the others with the thought that we were seriously discussing rules. If not, please accept my apologies and I will not bring it up again. We can just go with fuzzy rules and wait for some to get offended again before we revisit this issue.

Peace

PS. I will add only to those that PM me saying how you agree with me, thanks but this is not a contest or pissing match between any members. If you have a point of view, then please post it. Agree or disagree with me. I really don't care. Trust me, this will not be the first time I am the only one thinking one way while the crowd thinks another. Hell, I was a gun owning Libertarian vet living on the upper west side of Manhattan

[CCinPA]

Let me see if I can better explain my point of view in terms more may understand.

Section 21 of the PA Constitution clearly states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

So in a general we can consider Section 21 as the RULE in regards to guns.

However in real life we are questioned many times trying to exercise our right. As far as I'm concern the Rule stated above is completely meaningless. Instead of breaking daily this rule a more honest approach would be to repeal Section 21.

The sign of the truly insane is that they lie to themselves and then believe the lie.

Section 21 is a lie. Plain and simple. Those that believe we have unquestioned gun rights are insane. Just saying something is true does not make it true.

Now to our happy discussion, especially in reply to Dan and others. A rule can not have it both ways. For a simplest of examples: the use of curse words. What kind of rule do you write that allows it as long as it is not used too much? Do we get a monthly allocation? 15 F and 10 S words? Can we trade allocation among members? Can they be sold? $ 1 for every F word?

The same can be said about so called Flame Wars. When does it become a flame and when is it just a general disagreement about a topic. If somebody is being a ass, can we not say so with fear of offending them?

We can go on and on. One man's jerk is another man's insightful thinker (or at least I hope so for my sake).

If the above can not be answered in a clear way then two things will happen:

1. Nobody will not know the rules and when one is punished for breaking them others will scream favoritism since we will have no rule standards that can be enforced uniformly and fairly.

2. Any rule that is not clearly written AND clearly enforced will end up like our poor Section 21, completely meaningless.

Again, I side with No Rules but in that case the offended must be informed of this and Dan must accept the risk that some more sensitive members may leave. If this place turns into just Dan's basement where all are judged based on his mood at the time, then I will join the sensitive members out the door.

Also for the record, I am not the one who stated the rule thing. I was also not the one demanding rules with threats of leaving if matters were not taken care. I have never PM or emailed Dan or CR about the need for rules or complaining about any other member. So far I have not been offended by any post that I have seen on this forum. So far no member has offended me or treated me with any disrespect. In other words, the problem is not me having a issue with this forum.

I post this and the others with the thought that we were seriously discussing rules. If not, please accept my apologies and I will not bring it up again. We can just go with fuzzy rules and wait for some to get offended again before we revisit this issue.

Peace

PS. I will add only to those that PM me saying how you agree with me, thanks but this is not a contest or pissing match between any members. If you have a point of view, then please post it. Agree or disagree with me. I really don't care. Trust me, this will not be the first time I am the only one thinking one way while the crowd thinks another. Hell, I was a gun owning Libertarian vet living on the upper west side of Manhattan

Actually Philly what you posted above is scary because I just happen to think it very much sounds like me. I am fine with no rules but I believe who issue happened when Frenchy's responses seem out of place but none of us really knew why. It is now clear he was fed a manipulated quote that triggered him.
So that combined with some threads dissapearing I feel got people by surprise as if something strange was going on. If everyone can understand not everything quoted here can be taken 100% serious then I really see no real need for any rules beyond what Dan already has. I also am in the same position as you I have not been offended by anyone here on this board and I have no bones to pick with anyone here. If anything there may be someone who is offended with me (Frenchy) because I came on a bit strong and I was quick to call him as being too sensitive when in fact it was based on the posts I saw and not what he seen.

[The Drew]

phillyd2,

You are laboring under an asumption that things must be black and white. They do not. It is called discretion, and Dan and his moderators should maintain discretion.

There should be a general rule that we should try to keep things civil, and if that is impossible, discretion will be used on the part of the moderators to resolve a conflict.

If we just have hard rules, we don't need moderators, just bots, since the rules will be setup and those posts that violate them will never see the light of day no matter how relevant to discussion they may be.

I for one am NOT in favor of strict rules and think discretion on the part of the moderators is the best course of action.

[Frenchy]

CCinPA I have no bones to pick either, Just want to protect every one. I suspect if you or any one else had seen what I had seen, you would have protecte me or whom ever was targeted by it

[TonyF]

I have a suggestion but it'll probably go over like a lead balloon. Before we created our website, the FIRE Institute director had established a yahoo discussion group, Pgh-training, where people could post course schedules and discuss gear, equipment and training techniques.

He insisted that people use their REAL names instead of screen names. I'm also a member of 10-8 forums and they do the same thing. In fact, if you're weren't sponsored by one of the 10-8 moderators as I was, you actually have to send them a hard copy of your drivers license.

I agree with that policy and believe as some do that the perceived *anonymity* that comes from using screen names allows people to *hide* behind them. This in turn can have the effect of emboldening people to be abrasive when they normally shouldn't or more importantly, wouldn't.

It may be too late now with so many members here but if I was starting one of these message boards, people would be using their real names or they wouldn't be accepted as members.

[billamj]

Interesting concept Tony but I think that any demand for hard copy documentation would adversely affect membership. Having said that, it might be possible to request that people who join be required to supply a valid, ISP specific, e-mail address rather than a yahoo, lycos, hotmail, etc., e-mail address. It is much easier to spoof using one of the generic services than it is using something ISP specific and it really only has to apply to new members from this point on, none that are extant would be required to change. Just a thought.

[danp]

He insisted that people use their REAL names instead of screen names.

This would be great in theory, however I think our forum would be very small. These days everyone wants their privacy on the Internet especially firearm owners. I think there would be tumbleweed blowing through any forum that required a real name. Not to mention you'd have to verify it.

[ChamberedRound]

Personally, I don't think there's a need to use real names in the forum. First off, it doesn't really solve the identity problem. Yes, people would be using their real names, but in the lack of face-to-face communication, people are still going to act anonymous in the attitude of their posts, because it's not an in-person discussion.

I also think requiring people to provide identification to join the forum is a little much. There are a lot of people (myself included) who are very concerned about privacy, identity theft, etc. The more places that require personal details, the more chances there are that those details could be acquired by those with less than honorable intentions. And, in the end it doesn't prevent someone from acting like a jerk. If someone is going to act that way, how does having their personal information help us stop them from misbehaving on the forum? IMHO, it doesn't.

In addition, once the process of making the PAFOA an official organization is complete, there will most likely be an official membership that can be applied for. Those that wish to sign up will probably have to provide personal information. However, those that want to use the forum, not sign up, and maintain their privacy should have the right to do so and still participate here.

Let's not make more of this issue than there is. It's simple: be courteous, be fair, be respectful. Anyone who isn't should be reported to the mods.

[TonyF]

This would be great in theory, however I think our forum would be very small. These days everyone wants their privacy on the Internet especially firearm owners. I think there would be tumbleweed blowing through any forum that required a real name. Not to mention you'd have to verify it.

Dan,

I agree except that anyone who knows anything about the internet (as I'm sure you do) knows there is no such thing as anonymity on the 'net.

[danp]

Dan,

I agree except that anyone who knows anything about the internet (as I'm sure you do) knows there is no such thing as anonymity on the 'net.

I dunno about that, it's fairly easy to hide from anyone short of the authorities on the Internet, and even then you can make it really, really difficult.