I'm not grumpy and I'm not old (52), but we do live at a time when public policy and politics are much more on the minds of all of those people who care than at any other time in recent decades.

It seems quite unnatural and unrealistic to expect that people who know each other to limit their discussions to one narrow area, as that goes against the way humans have interacted for thousands of years. It is obvious that forum moderators are in a difficult situation, as the Internet and discussion forums are new, so it will be interesting to see how they evolve.

The distinction between politics and policy should not be lost. Discussions of policy involve issues such as possible courses of actions, benefits and pitfalls, and means and methods. Politics is more about parties and people going against each, and methods of defeating the opposition.

I much prefer to read posts and threads HERE than on that other un-named and un-moderated forum where vile and very offensive non-radio stuff gets posted for all to read.

For example, on that other site his past week was a major troll-war among several people I really don't care about or want to know about.

Thank you for keeping this forum a safe place to post and learn about radios. That's all I really care about.

Thank you Alan.

Yes, thanks Allan for taking some action on this!

Some clarifying thoughts:

The rules of the forums are not directly from me. They have been in place for more than ten years and are the result of public discussions among the members at that time, and the consensus (by a rather wide margin) was not to allow certain things to be posted.

Although I am the site owner, I don't consider myself the site dictator. That's why there are a wide range of people as moderators. That is also why most policy decisions are made by discussions of the people using the site (Example: the "price must be listed" for all For Sale ads in the classified section was proposed, discussed, and decided upon completely within that section and the resultant decision was then made site policy. I wasn't involved at all in the discussions, and in fact, wasn't even aware of them until a decision was made). Majority rules.

I personally agree with the idea of prohibiting politics and religion as acceptable topics, but if the public consensus were otherwise, I'd reverse the rule.

Between reading the public comments as well as the many PMs I've received, there has been some concern about what is acceptable and about possible inadvertent violations.

My concern isn't about a simple error of judgment; it's the flagrant attempt to abuse the good will of the members and myself. I have attempted to be fair and give the benefit of the doubt to everyone, but there will always be some who will have issues with something and feel it is their "right" to do as they please, regardless.

Violations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. An inadvertent comment or one open to different interpretations might be excused. If not, remember that it takes four strikes for a permanent ban and the first is just a warning.

There are people here that disagree with how I run this site (and tell me so), but I do the best I can and try to be fair to everyone. I hate having to add stricter policies, but unless i do so more and more of my time will continually be required to settle the problems and issues here.

It's certainly reasonable that you want to run a radio discussion forum, not a political site. Its growth is proof that this policy works: if the vast majority didn't agree, they wouldn't be here.

As the Brits say, Here here!" I personally would appreciate this site to be about mainly electronics (Radios etc.) I don't appreciate politics or religion because it gets so flamed.

Please don't change the rules. There are only a very few that think that they can constantly push the envelope. They know who they are and just keep trying.

Again, Thanks Alan...

All I can say Alan is I wish I had a small pittance of the patience you showed through the years steering this ship and unwieldy crew. ...Myself included.

It sure ain't no "Love Boat" but I think you made it a comfortable place to spend some time on vacation away from the hassles of everyday life in no small part because of those rules.

Just a little common courtesy and respect shown to others being the main rule.

They are a proven part of the formula why this site in the long run works.


Many thanks.

Ken

[quote="Tarpawns"]All I can say Alan is I wish I had a small pittance of the patience you showed through the years steering this ship and unwieldy crew. ...Myself included.

I couldn't have said it better Ken! Funny I was just about to post a similar response when I read yours. Great minds think alike .

Alan, keep doing what you're doing and thank you for giving us this great venue community.

One side suggestion, maybe the front page of the forum could be a standard disclaimer page with an agree/disagree tickbox regarding forum policies and a choice of logging in as guest or registering before allowing entrance to the site like some other sites use. That way even newbies and guests can know up front just what the forum standards are.

The continue to ARF entrance link to the site could then be at the bottom of said disclaimer page and without an agreement from the prospective user it would simply block those who chose not to abide by the rules. It would make sorting things out later in the event of a violation easier because the argument about "not knowing" would be a moot point. Just a suggestion in case it becomes needed down the road if the current setup falls short.

JM2cW

I'm a member of several Arkansas sports message boards and most of them will ban you on the first offense. They aren't as patient and understanding as Alan is.

I heard that a member here got banned last night. I don't know what he did, but it must have been pretty bad to justify a banning.

But there are rules here and each of us should make every effort to follow those rules. I'm glad to know if I goof up and accidentally violate a rule, that Alan will give me a second chance. It isn't that way on a lot of boards.

Alan, I consider you to be very fair. That is why I am a bit puzzled.

But, a small vocal minority (I believe it to be a minority),Ruined it for everyone else.
Alan, you had no problem previously with us talking about guns - there were 4 moderators that joined in, also.

The ARF members that are "gun guys"were having enjoyable conversations. I believe for the most part, it was the Spoilers who would throw a anti-gun statement in to the thread, and change it into a regretable tit-for-tat - that then would be deemed "political".

The Proof of this is that Moderators, whom they themselves were participants, would see the necessity to Lock a thread. As long as the original "pro" participants behaved themselves by not bringing into the conversation actual political references, everything went smoothly- until a 'heckler' decided to 'stir the pot'.

There's holes in the logic here.

You used to say that it was NOT a democracy, and that has been parroted by the Anti's. Now, you say "Majority rules"...After being flooded with PMs from the Anti's.

If that's the case, then the PROS were not allowed a chance to send you their input. You based your new rules and stricter enforcement on a "behind doors" meeting, where the Pros were not told that the "meeting" was even occurring.

How could any leader, ruler, city council, govt. body, fairly come to a decision, when not everyone is entitled Input?

If "Majority rules"-Let's Vote.

Not trying to speak for Alan, but....

I'm not sure that Alan has banned "gun talk". I think that the last little episode was brought on by a repeated attempt to keep a nasty thread going by restarting it a couple of times after it (or one of them) was locked.

I'm pretty sure that a calm, non combative thread about guns would be left alone and not locked. It's that "calm and non combative", "without politics or religion" part that would be a tall order

just a thought

cheers

John

Correct. Things were going smoothly until a political view went in, then, more followed. It turned into a political war.
Thread was shut down.

Next, they continued the political war in a new thread, and, it was locked down again.
Even with the warnings from Alan, and, moderators, they started a differently nemed thread, continued the ploitical war, and, started bashing both Alan, and, moderators.

If it had stayed straight gun talk the lock down would never had happenned.
Just a thought.

I think Alan is very fair, and, tries to give people a chance. After all, guys, this is his forum. He has a right to do what he wishes.
The only three major rules he has always maintained are:
No politics,
No religion,
No firewars, which includes bashing of others.
Thank you.
Bill Cahill

Thanks John, Bill. Well, if that IS the case, then fine.

Perhaps it all Would work fine, then.

If the New rules are applied equally across the board, ie:,as in this example, with a"gun talk" Thread, then there would be no need to Lock a thread and punish the whole group of participants, only those that bring politics into it, whether they be a Pro or Anti.

THAT would be Fair.
So may I confirm then, that Gun threads, as well as cars, furnaces, watches, tools, cats, etc., Are Not by their very Nature, political?
And will only be deemed So when Anyone 'pollutes' the thread with political commentary?
AND, That whether or not the Threads subject matter is cars or guns, that the Poster who is guilty of bringing political commentary into the thread, will be the one whom is reprimanded, and not by punishing those on the thread whom are behaving themselves by Locking it down?
Is this Correct?
It certainly is Fair.

Let me see if I can say this right.

There is a vast difference between "gun talk" as you call it and topics about "gun control". The first is non-political, and the latter is VERY political.

I am a member of a couple of gun forums also and there we talk nothing but guns. But if the topic shifts to gun control, it is immediately zapped and the person bringing gun control into the topic of discussion is in deep doo doo and will most likely be banned on the first offense.

We take these matters VERY seriously. A firearm is a tool. Just like the skil saw or hammer, ax or whatever in your shop. They are incapable of harming someone by themselves. It is when someone is handling them that bad things happen. Same thing with your skil saw. Would you let your six year old son plug it in and play with it?

The discussions only go bad when someone, sometimes unknowingly, inserts comments into the discussion that change the focus from a topic of guns into a topic of gun control. For people who are not that much up on firearm ownership, it is a very fine line. However for most of us who grew up with firearms, the dividing line is a mile wide, and very easy to see.
Curt

I understand. No disagreement on any of that, Curt.

Jeez! The world runs on rules. The country runs on rules. I can think of a couple of persons I'd like to shoot but it is not going to happen. This is Alan's forum. If we cannot live with the rules we should leave. We are guests. Philip, I hope that was tongue in cheek.

No, what you saw is what happens when people fail to run their book learning through the common-sense filter. Either that or this is the most dedicated months-long troll I've ever seen. Liberty as a concept has a great deal to recommend it, obviously, but I'm a practical person at heart and I find that setting a minimal number of judiciously-chosen rules of engagement here or there greases the wheels of communication without necessarily leading to the creation of a dictatorship........

I like the way you said that, Paul. You get my vote as the better Wordsmith!

No, Bruce, my comment was not intended as a joke. It was brief because I had more fully considered the issue on the thread entitled “Look What I Found”. That thread was deleted by the next day. Perhaps it became uncivil after my last viewing of it, perhaps not. But the idea that some people ought to have a say in what others may discuss, is intellectually repugnant—and it should disgust any-one who has even a bit of back-bone, if not a natural appreciation for the value and justice of Liberty.

Of course these forums have an owner who may literally and morally do as he pleases; and, as has been pointed out by myself and others, participants may accept or decline the conditions offered. That does not mean we should not express an opinion about forum policies.

It is well known in the sciences that the furtherance and dissemination of knowledge occurs best in a free environment, even if that means there must be disagreement, debate, and even rancour. When a venue of communication becomes stifled with rules controlling what may be discussed, it tends to drive away the most intelligent and valuable members, or at least reduce their activity. No-one with an ounce of integrity wishes to be treated like a child; even children should not be treated that way!

I have not been one of the major contributors to the ARF, so my departure would not have any noticeable effect on the quality of the content. But note that many of those who became quite animated on the political threads are also those who have contributed a great deal. And it seems that many of those who complain the most vocally about political and off-topic discussion are lesser contributors, in terms of quantity or quality, which is something I have noticed on other forums.

I will frankly admit that I am surprised at how many members have elected to meekly accept the forum topic and violation policies. It appears that there is no longer very much to be found of the freedom-loving, independent, and courageous spirit that once was a hallmark of this country. Few people seem willing to stand for their principles, while a great many whine that every desire and preference is not instantly accommodated by others.

The ARF “club house” is clearly marked as a place for off-topic discussions. This categorisation was clearly not sufficient for some people, who claim to be so upset at various topics. They chose to enter. Then they chose to read topics that they should have known would upset them. Then they complained that they were upset. What can one make of such people? If a bottle is marked “poison”, will they drink the contents? How far can those of higher nature be expected to compromise their ideals to accommodate such a lack of sense? Why should it be accommodated at all?

Those who actively engaged in the political threads seemed to be content to do so. The complaints came primarily from people who chose to read material they knew would be likely to upset them. For the forum policy to be predicated upon the preferences of minds such as these is like letting lunatics run an asylum.

Here is a suggestion, based upon the practice of other internet forums: When some-one posts a message on a political topic, the message title should begin with the word “political” or “politics”. If a non-political thread becomes political, the title should be amended accordingly. In this way, there can be no mistaking the contents of a thread, and those who never the less complain are either utter fools, or have some other agenda, such as the common desire to prevent opposing ideas from being publicly expressed.

Another possibility is a separate political sub-forum. The reason that the many political discussion sites on the internet are not truly an alternative is that each non-political special-interest forum, such as the ARF, constitutes a unique assemblage of individuals. Political discussion amongst them increases overall communication and thought about issues that are critical to the lives of all. In addition, most people do not spend a great deal of time discussing politics, and are not motivated to participate on political forums. Their special-interest forums offer a place for important discussions that would not otherwise take place.

The world does not “run on rules”: it runs despite rules. Rules are force. They are the means whereby people exert force against others to get what they want, no different than common criminals, and with no more justification.

Mr Voorhees states that he is not a dictator, and in fact it is admirable that he considers at all the opinions of others when formulating his policies. But majority rule is dictatorship, too. True civilisation, on internet forums, and in the world at large, can be achieved only when people will forego the use of force against others, and accept the fact that those others will not—and need not—necessarily accommodate their needs, desires, or preferences.

This forum is privately owned. No-one has a “right” to participate on it. But no-one is obligated to participate, either. Members and potential members may wish to consider the status of their integrity when making the choice.

Paul: I see that you continue to resort to ad hominem attacks and unsupported categorical assertions. Have you never heard that discretion is sometimes the better part of valour? It has become obvious that you were humiliated on the medical care thread over a year ago, and have harboured a resentment against me ever since. But you should have realised that it is just as impossible to refute rationality as it is to evade reality.

Your comment—

“Liberty as a concept has a great deal to recommend it, obviously, but....”

—is grotesque. That is like saying “human rights have a great deal to recommend them [but they should not get in the way of this or that outcome that I, or a majority, desire].” Liberty and human rights are as two sides of a coin. Liberty is your right to live and to act to achieve your happiness, without interference by others, whatever their reasons. Liberty is an expression of the fact that the rights of all individuals must rationally be equal, and that groups and majorities can not gain rights beyond those of individual members.

You, or a majority, haven’t any more right to exert force against others, than a thug has to break down your door, and have his way with you, your family, and your property. What you mean by “practicality” is merely that you think achieving certain outcomes you or others desire is a reasonable excuse to employ force. Perhaps one day you may find that others’ “practicality” might have dire implications for you. For when force is the standard of human interaction, there is no end to predation, and human rights may as well not exist.

When you say that Liberty must be compromised—for the benefit of some at the expense of others—you are arguing that human rights are not equal. You thus repudiate rights altogether. You don’t stand for Liberty at all. There is a particular way of life you prefer, and you are willing that force be employed to attain and keep it. Until you learn and understand this, and in consequence change your ways, you may not rightly claim the mantle of civilisation.

Macdonald: a toothless smile is, in its own way, surprisingly expressive.