Politics sub-forum

[BehindBlueI's]

The staff has been discussing the possibility of creating a sub-forum specifically for political and hot-button issues and to then leave general discussion for less controversial and more social topics. This would allow the people who just want to bullshit with friends to do so without having to "ignore thread" multiple times if they don't want to engage in the political discussions. Especially now, we understand that this can be rather divisive.

We'd like input from the membership and if it would be open to all members or only to site supporters (meaning for non-site supporters, there would not be an option for political discourse).

This would also apply to the "memes" thread, where political content would go in a new meme thread in the new sub-forum.

Lack of civility or getting butt hurt over what's deemed "political" would result in loss of access to the sub-forum.

This is all spit-balling now and nothing has been decided, so we want your input.

Thoughts?

(Poll is up and voting isn't public)

[blues]

I see pros and cons on both sides...gonna have to think on it a bit.

[RJ]

Fuck yes.

Apologies for my terse but heartfelt reaction. It’s been on my own mind, as I’ve been self-isolated myself, by ignoring’ certain threads (very useful feature, that) in GD. (I’ve found myself caught up in it way too much lately.). And I believe tensions will run even higher as we get to November. Poli-Sci is an extremely useful construct in online fora. If it all gets funneled into a Poli-Sci cesspool subforum, it’ll be easier to ignore the whole lot.

I’m all for it.

[Wondering Beard]

I'm ambivalent about this and tending towards no.

Those types of specific discussions tend to, after a while, only pull in those who want to argue and whose minds won't be changed. Those who have an interest, a more nuanced view or just questions would rapidly be turned off and never come back. Only the loudest will post after a while.

You might be herding all the cats in one place but I figure that most of the moderating (and ensuing butt hurt, rage quit, baseless accusations and general acting out etc ..) will be there and thus that most of the tension created there will migrate to other threads/sub forums. In other words, you may think you're containing all the bad/stupid political stuff in one place but you're actually putting it all in a high pressure cooker ready to blow over everything else. The way it is now, it is mostly spread out over a large bunch of threads where people who normally won't engage (or would in a mild manner) will apply pressure for the stupid political parts to stop (the less stupid political parts would continue). If you keep things spread out, I think it will be smoother overall than if you try and keep the tempest in one place only.

Of course, I don't know all that you moderators have to deal with and how you deal with it, so I could be wrong.

If the membership decides on a political sub forum, I'd rather it be for site supporters only.

As to a political meme thread, I might support that only if memes are all that's posted, no commentary on memes posted. Let the memes fight it out without people needing to argue.

[blues]

I'm ambivalent about this and tending towards no.

Those types of specific discussions tend to, after a while, only pull in those who want to argue and whose minds won't be changed. Those who have an interest, a more nuanced view or just questions would rapidly be turned off and never come back. Only the loudest will post after a while.

You might be herding all the cats in one place but I figure that most of the moderating (and ensuing butt hurt, rage quit, baseless accusations and general acting out etc ..) will be there and thus that most of the tension created there will migrate to other threads/sub forums. In other words, you may think you're containing all the bad/stupid political stuff in one place but you're actually putting it all in a high pressure cooker ready to blow over everything else. The way it is now, it is mostly spread out over a large bunch of threads where people who normally won't engage (or would in a mild manner) will apply pressure for the stupid political parts to stop (the less stupid political parts would continue). If you keep things spread out, I think it will be smoother overall than if you try and keep the tempest in one place only.

Of course, I don't know all that you moderators have to deal with and how you deal with it, so I could be wrong.

If the membership decides on a political sub forum, I'd rather it be for site supporters only.

As to a political meme thread, I might support that only if memes are all that's posted, no commentary on memes posted. Let the memes fight it out without people needing to argue.

As usual, completely un-surprised that you touched on the very reservations I referred to in my post above, but was too lazy to delineate.

[trailrunner]

I voted no for two reasons:

1) Unlike some other forums, 2A politics is central to a site for gun owners. I'm not sure if that should be discussed in some out-of-the-way place, where it might get buried with all the other political crap.

2) Sometimes when you put the RSP (religion, sex, politics) in a far away place, the participants think the rules are looser and they can get away with worse behavior. It's good for the overall forum because RSP isn't discussed there, but the RSP area becomes a cesspool that normal people don't want to visit.

That's my two cents.

[ST911]

The staff has been discussing the possibility of creating a sub-forum specifically for political and hot-button issues and to then leave general discussion for less controversial and more social topics. This would allow the people who just want to bullshit with friends to do so without having to "ignore thread" multiple times if they don't want to engage in the political discussions. Especially now, we understand that this can be rather divisive.

We'd like input from the membership and if it would be open to all members or only to site supporters (meaning for non-site supporters, there would not be an option for political discourse).

This would also apply to the "memes" thread, where political content would go in a new meme thread in the new sub-forum.

Lack of civility or getting butt hurt over what's deemed "political" would result in loss of access to the sub-forum.

This is all spit-balling now and nothing has been decided, so we want your input.

Thoughts?

(Poll is up and voting isn't public)

I like sub-forum idea, indifferent on participation. I'd like to ignore most of that content, but still up my chainsaw and air fryer games.

I'd also love to ignore content by keyword.

[Duelist]

Hmm. I haven’t thrown a spitball in a long while.

No, for all the reasons trailrunner gave.

[CCT125US]

Yes, and I would suggest for SS only. Otherwise anyone can chime in and bloviate.

As a bonus, it may provide an outlet for some to feel like they are being heard, without cluttering other threads.

[SeriousStudent]

I vote yes. I enjoy getting a chuckle out of the meme thread, it's usually very funny. But the political stuff just makes me sigh.

I completely understand Wandering Beard's point about things boiling over into other threads.

But I do feel that the folks whose knee responds involuntarily will do so regardless of the name on the subforum.

Definitely agree on the site supporter part.

[BehindBlueI's]

Those types of specific discussions tend to, after a while, only pull in those who want to argue and whose minds won't be changed. Those who have an interest, a more nuanced view or just questions would rapidly be turned off and never come back. Only the loudest will post after a while.

So that's one concern I had as well, as well as the 'echo chamber' effect. However what I'm seeing is the more nuanced and dissenting opinions are already getting fed up and are already reducing their participation. There are people who've expressed a concern with the direction the forum has taken and much of that boils down to what takes place in GD when you drill down enough. I think the loudest voices thing is already a concern.

I also think that proper moderation may counteract that. If you *have* to remain civil or simply lose your ability to post in the politics section, will that not encourage civility? If it spills over, we can deal with that as well. Of course, I'm sure there will be some level of butthurt on occasion, but that's going to be expected if we do or don't.


I voted no for two reasons:

1) Unlike some other forums, 2A politics is central to a site for gun owners. I'm not sure if that should be discussed in some out-of-the-way place, where it might get buried with all the other political crap.

2) Sometimes when you put the RSP (religion, sex, politics) in a far away place, the participants think the rules are looser and they can get away with worse behavior. It's good for the overall forum because RSP isn't discussed there, but the RSP area becomes a cesspool that normal people don't want to visit.

That's my two cents.

#1 is a solid point, and perhaps worthy of it's own forum either way. A "2nd amendment legal/political" forum where court cases, pending legislation proposals, etc. could be showcased outside of the air fryer/chainsaw/pictures of trees sort of threads may actually get those topics more exposure.

#2 I've already touched on. It would not be Romper Room rules and would likely be more strictly monitored then GD as far as needing to stay on topic, civility, etc.

[Kanye Wyoming]

I propose a separate sub-forum for 2A issues open to everyone, and that all other GD be for site supporters only on the theory that owners are more likely to look after the house than renters.

[LittleLebowski]

I propose a separate sub-forum for 2A issues open to everyone, and that all other GD be for site supporters only on the theory that owners are more likely to look after the house than renters.


#OwnerHereIsShit (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=OwnerHereIsShit)

[Kanye Wyoming]

#OwnerHereIsShit (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=OwnerHereIsShit)
Well no fucking duh, but you won’t find a house anywhere with cleaner asses or tastier air fried wings, amirite?

Just reinforces my point.

[Grey]

How is this different from the Romper Room? Honestly that doesn't seem to be really enforced as of late so not sure what this new sub forum is going to do?

[CCT125US]

Just looked and I have roughly 80 threads on ignore, and 3 sub forums (GD, CC, and RR). Partly to decrease my screen time, and mostly because I got tired of seeing people argue over stupid shit. And... some think their opinion is gospel, which it is not, it's just noise, like chickens clucking.

[Lon]

Please, for the love of all that’s holy, do this and make it so that Posts from that sub-forum don’t show up when I hit “new posts”. I come here for gun shit, not politics. It is somewhat depressing when I hit “new posts” and it seems that most of the posts that show up have nothing to do with, you know, pistol stuff.

[JAD]

I would just kill Romper Room. It would do the same thing. I think about 80% of memes are political in some way so I would just heavily moderate commentary there. I’d move it to coterie.

In other words, I would limit discussion of non-technical content to site supporters. How many SS have had to be banned?

[Lon]

Just looked and I have roughly 80 threads on ignore, and 3 sub forums (GD, CC, and RR). Partly to decrease my screen time, and mostly because I got tired of seeing people argue over stupid shit. And... some think their opinion is gospel, which it is not, it's just noise, like chickens clucking.

Holy shit I learned something today. Didn’t know I can ignore sub-forums. Thank God.

[olstyn]

If the membership decides on a political sub forum, I'd rather it be for site supporters only.


Yes, and I would suggest for SS only. Otherwise anyone can chime in and bloviate.

Disagree strongly. When you hide stuff in a site supporters-only area and prohibit discussion of it elsewhere, especially publicly-available information that people will want to talk about, you're just splitting it into haves and have-nots, with the have-nots discussing it anyway, but getting (probably repeatedly) told that they're not allowed, locked threads, etc. I think that creates at least as many moderation problems as it solves.

[JAD]

Disagree strongly. When you hide stuff in a site supporters-only area and prohibit discussion of it elsewhere, especially publicly-available information that people will want to talk about, you're just splitting it into haves and have-nots, with the have-nots discussing it anyway, but getting (probably repeatedly) told that they're not allowed, locked threads, etc. I think that creates at least as many moderation problems as it solves.

Sure, if you make space for it. I would have no space for it. There would be no place for non-technical discussion open to non-SS. That would eliminate your concern I think.

[Alembic]

I voted no because I like to hear the range of political opinions that naturally pop up in discussions. It can be honest and enlightening when it comes out unexpectedly.

To hear dissenting opinions, Usually..., intelligent and articulate. Well, it can be pretty good reading. And I get to learn about generators, chain saws and revolvers at the same time.

Don’t put all the crazy in one box, it’s good to have a little crazy around.

[JAD]

Branching slightly, I can’t think of significant content that was posted by non-SS in any thread in the last couple of years. Change my mind.

[BehindBlueI's]

How is this different from the Romper Room? Honestly that doesn't seem to be really enforced as of late so not sure what this new sub forum is going to do?

I think the named sub-forum makes it less ambiguous, and RR is also kind of the opposite of what we're proposing. The Romper Room is at the "least moderated" end of the scale whereas a certain level of don't call each other douchebags sort of decorum would expected in a politics sub-forum. I have mostly seen Romper Room as a stage between closed thread and general discussion.

[jlw]

Due to the increasing amount of political threads in the general discussion forum, I ignored it so that threads in it won't appear when I click "new posts".

That's not an indictment of the forum management or membership; it's a choice of mine to unplug from as much political drama as possible. If my escape hatch is just going to be more of what I want to escape from, there is no reason to open it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Branching slightly, I can’t think of significant content that was posted by non-SS in any thread in the last couple of years. Change my mind.

I guess it depends on what you consider significant, but personally I've enjoyed Bruce Cartwright's threads. I'm sure there are others, that's just what popped to mind first.

[Yung]

Unless it's 2A related, I think political discussion and all political thread drifts should be put in Romper Room, or shut out entirely. I think a lot more folks have stayed away from General Discussion in the past few months and in doing so missed out on quality threads along with a decreased presence in the forums overall. I do not think GD was a section people were avoiding when I joined in 2017 or any point prior to that.

[olstyn]

Sure, if you make space for it. I would have no space for it. There would be no place for non-technical discussion open to non-SS. That would eliminate your concern I think.

You are going in exactly the opposite direction from me on this one. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I think you're completely wrong. This place has always been about open exchange of information and opinions, not closing things down and splitting the membership into some sort of over and under class. You're proposing to cut a large number of people off from a large portion of the site's content, and it shouldn't be surprising to you that as one of the people you're proposing to cut off, I'm against that.

[Grey]

Unless it's 2A related, I think political discussion and all political thread drifts should be put in Romper Room, or shut out entirely. I think a lot more folks have stayed away from General Discussion in the past few months and in doing so missed out on quality threads along with a decreased presence in the forums overall. I do not think GD was a section people were avoiding when I joined in 2017 or any point prior to that.

I'd agree with you, GD has gone down hill very recently, in my opinion. The partisanship and bickering has increased... bigly...

[blues]

You are going in exactly the opposite direction from me on this one. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I think you're completely wrong. This place has always been about open exchange of information and opinions, not closing things down and splitting the membership into some sort of over and under class. You're proposing to cut a large number of people off from a large portion of the site's content, and it shouldn't be surprising to you that as one of the people you're proposing to cut off, I'm against that.

So is the contention primarily philosophical or a matter of paying for site supporter status?

I understand the philosophical argument...it's why I haven't yet voted one way or the other...but if it comes down to unwillingness to pay, I'm a little less sympathetic...unless it's truly a matter of financial wherewithal.

[Grey]

So is the contention primarily philosophical or a matter of paying for site supporter status?

I understand the philosophical argument...it's why I haven't yet voted one way or the other...but if it comes down to unwillingness to pay, I'm a little less sympathetic...unless it's truly a matter of financial wherewithal.

Maybe this is a dick comment but honestly if you can't spend 25 bucks a YEAR for membership and that cuts you off from posting in a SS-only politics forum perhaps you have bigger problems than not being able to post in a SS-only forum...

[JAD]

You are going in exactly the opposite direction from me on this one. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I think you're completely wrong. This place has always been about open exchange of information and opinions, not closing things down and splitting the membership into some sort of over and under class. You're proposing to cut a large number of people off from a large portion of the site's content, and it shouldn't be surprising to you that as one of the people you're proposing to cut off, I'm against that.

With no bias, why aren’t you a site supporter? Does the forum not deliver value to you?

[blues]

Maybe this is a dick comment but honestly if you can't spend 25 bucks a YEAR for membership and that cuts you off from posting in a SS-only politics forum perhaps you have bigger problems than not being able to post in a SS-only forum...

Well, I think that is more abrasive than it needed to be. I was actually trying to get an honest answer... as opposed to a reaction.

[olstyn]

So is the contention primarily philosophical or a matter of paying for site supporter status?

I understand the philosophical argument...it's why I haven't yet voted one way or the other...but if it comes down to unwillingness to pay, I'm a little less sympathetic...unless it's truly a matter of financial wherewithal.

Purely philosophical. I don't like the idea of intentionally creating an underclass anywhere, but especially not on a forum which, as I said, has historically been about open exchange of information. Being brutally frank, if it was to go as far in that direction as JAD is suggesting, I'd be more likely to quit the forum altogether than to pay up, which, given his comments on the significance of posts by non-SS, would seem to be what he wants. It's hardly the first time I've disagreed with him, though, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[blues]

Purely philosophical. I don't like the idea of intentionally creating an underclass anywhere, but especially not on a forum which, as I said, has historically been about open exchange of information. Being brutally frank, if it was to go as far in that direction as JAD is suggesting, I'd be more likely to quit the forum altogether than to pay up, which, given his comments on the significance of posts by non-SS, would seem to be what he wants. It's hardly the first time I've disagreed with him, though, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your honesty.

[olstyn]

With no bias, why aren’t you a site supporter? Does the forum not deliver value to you?

I've considered it off and on at different times, and my opinion goes back and forth. On some level, there are ads running on the forum, so it's supported that way by every visitor. I've only recently gotten to a place in life where I'm financially comfortable, so while $25/year would never have broken me, it wasn't money I wanted to spend. Now that I'm in a much more financially comfortable place than I was in the past, it's likely that I will become a site supporter at some point, but I also don't feel obligated to.

To throw the question back at you, why do you feel that non-site supporters should be treated as an underclass?

[Yung]

I'd caution against using Site Supporter status as a paywall. From what I've seen of other forums in the past, that sort of thing is more conducive to turning them into echo chambers that gradually poison the user base that remains.

Take a look at the instructions, for your reference.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57-Instructions-for-becoming-a-site-supporter

[CCT125US]

Was going to reply specifically, but I'll post generally.

From my viewpoint, at it's core, PF is a vehicle to access some of the best knowledge related to shooting pistols. If someone wants to drive off topic, they should at least pay for fuel.
While the scenic route can be entertaining, when you're trying to reach a destination it can slow the arrival. There's a big internet out there, plenty of places for other interests.

[Wondering Beard]

So that's one concern I had as well, as well as the 'echo chamber' effect. However what I'm seeing is the more nuanced and dissenting opinions are already getting fed up and are already reducing their participation. There are people who've expressed a concern with the direction the forum has taken and much of that boils down to what takes place in GD when you drill down enough. I think the loudest voices thing is already a concern.

I am one of those getting fed up :-). Or rather let's say that I am tired of the silly bickering that comes with the politically charged posts that have been poping up in a bunch of threads that don't need them and often begun without any such content. However, I'm not at all sure that taking those "voices" into their own separate room is the right approach.

To add detail, I don't have any thread, or sub forum, or for that matter any member on 'ignore', at least as far as I can remember. As those irritating, to me, posts show up in any GD thread, I can simply skip them (often enough the name of the poster or the first few sentences tell me all that I need to know) but I can still read the posts of those who are more measured, or have a point that can be discussed less "passionately", or get a point of view that I hadn't thought about. Put those discussions in one sub forum and that is most likely the one I will put on ignore and miss on some of the more intelligent comments that would make me think. Spread out as they are now, I can much more easily pick and choose and I'd rather do that and be irritated every so often than put a whole bunch of discussions on 'ignore'.

The above is my personal approach to the contentious subjects.

As a more general argument, I think that contentious voices are more easily drowned in a sea of other voices rather than concentrated in a room specialized for screaming.


Which leads to your second point.



I also think that proper moderation may counteract that. If you *have* to remain civil or simply lose your ability to post in the politics section, will that not encourage civility? If it spills over, we can deal with that as well. Of course, I'm sure there will be some level of butthurt on occasion, but that's going to be expected if we do or don't.

I am not a moderator here (and don't envy your jobs) so I don't know all the sorts of interactions you have to deal with in order to moderate properly. You may be right that a system of disincentives may do the job, but I fear that such a system by itself leads to more tension. In other words, the tighter you regulate, the more you find yourself needing to regulate more. The looser hold you have on GD enables the extra "pressure/intensity" of those topics to be let out more smoothly even if more people are nowadays "fed up", when spread over a dozen different threads (not even half of which, I would guess, are political to begin with), because those things ebb and flow. You will always get a level of butthurt as you correctly point out, but the discussions by those who aren't interested in the screaming will continue.

That's my present outlook on the matter but I haven't voted yet as I'm willing to hear other voices before I make up my mind.

[Wondering Beard]

Disagree strongly. When you hide stuff in a site supporters-only area and prohibit discussion of it elsewhere, especially publicly-available information that people will want to talk about, you're just splitting it into haves and have-nots, with the have-nots discussing it anyway, but getting (probably repeatedly) told that they're not allowed, locked threads, etc. I think that creates at least as many moderation problems as it solves.


I'd caution against using Site Supporter status as a paywall. From what I've seen of other forums in the past, that sort of thing is more conducive to turning them into echo chambers that gradually poison the user base that remains.

Take a look at the instructions, for your reference.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57-Instructions-for-becoming-a-site-supporter

Those are both good points and worth thinking about.

On the other hand, as BehindBlueI's has noted the GD where everyone can participate has lately gotten to be more unpleasant by, in great part IMO, posters who have little "skin in the game" of this forum and who will push something outrageous, thus disgust people who would otherwise participate. The site supporters only area has been a lot more circumspect.

Mind you, I haven't voted one way or the other right now and my counterpoint to both of you is in the spirit of searching, through argument, what could be a good solution, not a position that I have fully embraced.

As it stands, I don't favor a political sub forum as I prefer to have the political questions/opinions pop up in whatever thread provoked them, but if we must have one, I am tending towards having the participation be made by those who would, by their investment, be more attentive to their words.

Still, I haven't made up my mind.

[LOKNLOD]

I like the idea of a 2A-focused dedicated area. It’s a political topic that should be a uniting topic for everyone on this forum. Being able to discuss, highlight, strategize, call to action, is important for us. Inevitably some non-gun politics will bleed in though just because it’s a very partisan topic within our current system.

A general political sub forum has some pros and cons. I wouldn’t be against it. I see it being tough to moderate. Having a dedicated space gives people some confidence in starting fights. You probably wouldn’t start a fight in a friends house, but if their living room had a boxing ring in one corner, it might seem like fair game to punch him there.

[BehindBlueI's]

I've considered it off and on at different times, and my opinion goes back and forth. On some level, there are ads running on the forum, so it's supported that way by every visitor. I've only recently gotten to a place in life where I'm financially comfortable, so while $25/year would never have broken me, it wasn't money I wanted to spend. Now that I'm in a much more financially comfortable place than I was in the past, it's likely that I will become a site supporter at some point, but I also don't feel obligated to.

To throw the question back at you, why do you feel that non-site supporters should be treated as an underclass?

It's not an "underclass", it's flying coach when 1st class is available or any other of a number of tiered memberships. Site supporters do more to keep the site running and already have access to things non-site supporters don't. The ability to sell in the classifieds, for example.


..., has historically been about open exchange of information.

Technical information, yes. If you look back to the earlier days we're much more open about non-technical conversations now. The technical threads have always been open to all and will remain so unless the entire site had to go behind a paywall for some reason.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd caution against using Site Supporter status as a paywall. From what I've seen of other forums in the past, that sort of thing is more conducive to turning them into echo chambers that gradually poison the user base that remains.

Take a look at the instructions, for your reference.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57-Instructions-for-becoming-a-site-supporter

That's not a concern for me given the diversity of opinion among site supporters here .

[Darth_Uno]

I'd make Politics & Current Events its own forum. Then I can just ignore the whole thing. :cool:

But then you have to decide if it is moderated like everything else, or "enter at your own risk".

Also if you make it for supporters only, you'll be constantly dealing with new threads in General. Let's be honest, people won't pay attention to how it's set up. They'll start new threads constantly that are OT for General (that is, the threads belong in Politics but the thread starters can't see the sub-forum). Unless you made Politics visible but read-only for non-supporters.

[JAD]

I've considered it off and on at different times, and my opinion goes back and forth. On some level, there are ads running on the forum, so it's supported that way by every visitor. I've only recently gotten to a place in life where I'm financially comfortable, so while $25/year would never have broken me, it wasn't money I wanted to spend. Now that I'm in a much more financially comfortable place than I was in the past, it's likely that I will become a site supporter at some point, but I also don't feel obligated to.

To throw the question back at you, why do you feel that non-site supporters should be treated as an underclass?

Site supporter participation is skin in the game; people respect things they pay for more than things they take for free. Site supporter status for an active, long term participant is evidence of good character.

[hiro]

Yes for 2A sub-forum.

Yes for politics/current affairs sub-forum.

I think but can't know, that we're already at the point where the loudest voices/minds made up dominate the topics. If the consensus is that making it site supporters only will allow nuance and discussion to prosper, I'd say yes. If we want polarized views we have CNN and Fox for that.

My original reason for becoming a site supporter was from a wish that the wealth of shooting information here be available to me, if as a by product of that, the good people who own the forum might make a living from it, then win win. I admit tho, the way things have "felt" the last 3 months of covid-19 lockdown, I've been reconsidering my position. That's contrary to my original reasons for wanting to support the site and that's annoying. Introducing means to address or at least recognizing the issue and trying to do something about it is a good thing.

If we're starting wish lists, will the forum software allow the new posts button to be filtered? Say I didn't want to ignore a politics sub-forum but didn't want the results from it showing up in my new posts? Can that happen?

[Zincwarrior]

I propose a separate sub-forum for 2A issues open to everyone, and that all other GD be for site supporters only on the theory that owners are more likely to look after the house than renters.

Something to consider. 2A issues are relevant to the board and firearms. All the other stuff can drive off posters. A concern is that the board will become like Texas CHL etc. where if you're not posting cray cray you get pounded or banned.

[Tom Duffy]

Most of the political threads seem as if you're backing up a car really fast. OK at first, but inevitably you lose control. Someone says something over the line, vehement back and forth, and a number of pissed off people. This leaves lasting scars. I'd eliminate the threads altogether but certainly not my call. Containment is a good step. I do think much of the abrasive atmosphere will dissipate when we can all go out and shoot at things again.

[Borderland]

I can see a political sub forum but it's going to be a lot of work for somebody. If it happens it should be for site supporters only. People who really like to discuss politics (me) can pony up some support. Everyone else can discuss whatever they want in GD.

Just curious. Would topics regarding LE still be appropriate in GD? There seems to be a lot of LE discussion in GD these days with protests and riots that probably have a political tone all by themselves. Maybe that should go into the politics sub also. Just a thought.

I voted to keep it where it is but it's probably quite disruptive to some members. The noise level is getting pretty high. I can deal with it either way.

[olstyn]

Site supporter participation is skin in the game; people respect things they pay for more than things they take for free. Site supporter status for an active, long term participant is evidence of good character.

That really isn't an answer to the question I asked, except in terms of implied disdain based on the idea that if site supporter status = good character, lack of site supporter status = bad character. Do you, based on my posting history, believe that I lack respect for this forum or its members? I admit to frequently disagreeing with you personally, especially on topics related to religion, but I like to think I've done so respectfully.

[Lex Luthier]

I'm of several minds here. I can see the worry that GD has become too divisive, and those who are fueling that division are unlikely to follow generally agreed upon rules of decorum.
(If I have ever gone in that direction and ticked someone off, mea culpa. I do take the p!ss sometimes in General Discussion, but I'm primarily here to learn, and read more than I post.)
I can also see the point of not wanting to cut off some pretty wide-ranging and valuable perspective via over-moderation.

I have been a site supporter for the last several years out of appreciation for the labor of love that TLG and his friends have brought forth- it is by far the best and most informative of any private or public web forum I have participated in since getting on the WWW 26 years ago. The making of a few friends along the way has been cake. My SS status lapsed a few weeks back, though I intend to re-up as soon as my financial state will allow.

I do agree with JAD that paying members tend to behave a bit more carefully, and for the same reasons he gave.
But as a non-paying member, the tech discussions and ability to ask direct questions of national level SMEs are golden, too.

I think the social strain of the last quarter has been the primary driver of a lot of these forum problems, and as the country-indeed, the western hemisphere- reopens, we will see some calming down.
I voted for the separate political sub-forum, but would not be heartbroken if it didn't come to pass.

[JAD]

That really isn't an answer to the question I asked, except in terms of implied disdain based on the idea that if site supporter status = good character, lack of site supporter status = bad character. Do you, based on my posting history, believe that I lack respect for this forum or its members? I admit to frequently disagreeing with you personally, especially on topics related to religion, but I like to think I've done so respectfully.

That's right, I didn't properly extend my statement to answer your question. Site supporters generally provide better content than non-site-supporters because they're invested in the forum, and because it is a good and valid thing to recognize that someone is providing you with value and to in turn reward them with money.

I did not state the negative on purpose. I don't assert that people who don't choose to be site supporters have poor character, just that people who are have evidenced good character.

[blues]

That really isn't an answer to the question I asked, except in terms of implied disdain based on the idea that if site supporter status = good character, lack of site supporter status = bad character. Do you, based on my posting history, believe that I lack respect for this forum or its members? I admit to frequently disagreeing with you personally, especially on topics related to religion, but I like to think I've done so respectfully.

You didn't ask me but I've always thought you added to any conversation you participated in...and have never viewed anything of yours that comes to mind as objectionable.

[BehindBlueI's]

Just curious. Would topics regarding LE still be appropriate in GD? There seems to be a lot of LE discussion in GD these days with protests and riots that probably have a political tone all by themselves. Maybe that should go into the politics sub also. Just a thought.

I voted to keep it where it is but it's probably quite disruptive to some members. The noise level is getting pretty high. I can deal with it either way.

I think most of it would go in the "politics" section, especially if it's "politics and current events", which seems like it would be a more bright-line rule and easier to enforce. Of course technical threads would still go in the standard LE sub-forum. I guess you could have some LE threads that were neither technical nor political. Historical accounts, maybe, something like that.

[RevolverRob]

Here is an idea I'll float - that is a bit of a compromise

__

How about adding the ability to Prefix threads in General Discussion with brightly colored Prefixes that can then be ignored (through use of the ignore function) by users.

It would look something like this:

POLITICS: Trump Announces BBI to Be New Head of Female Body Inspection Service

ANYTHING that involves Protests, Elected Officials, Social Issues, would be labeled POLITICS - Including Economic shit (which to be honest, I find the MOST annoying of things) - EXCEPT Direct Second Amendment Issues (see below)

RELIGION: Catholic Church Announces JAD As New Administrator of Society of Catholic Apologists

2A: CHAZ Suspends Sales of Weapons Pending Passing of Universal Background Check Legislation - Second Amendment Foundation Sues

GARBAGE POST: RevolverRob Issues Proclamation That Turtles Are Awesome

Because frankly, I don't mind general garbage posts or 2A posts - But even I admit, as a frequent contributor to the political garbage that is floating around here, it would be nice from time to time to just eliminate all the threads that are titled "POLITICS:" or "RELIGION:"

___

I ONLY support this approach if the ability to ignore these Prefixes can be implemented. If not, then put me in the, "I don't know camp."

[Wondering Beard]

I think most of it would go in the "politics" section, especially if it's "politics and current events", which seems like it would be a more bright-line rule and easier to enforce. Of course technical threads would still go in the standard LE sub-forum. I guess you could have some LE threads that were neither technical nor political. Historical accounts, maybe, something like that.

Umm, would the COVID thread (not the politics/econ one), or the "cellular networks are down" thread go into that sub forum? They are current events, the former has had some political drifts, but they contain information that folks who still want to avoid the nastiness that has been happening in GD would want to see.

[RevolverRob]

Maybe I'll change myself from, "No Opinion" to "Yes":

Here is not even the first page of General Discussion right now - With the threads sub-headed the way I was proposing...

55995

[willie]

I enjoy the General Forum and its subdivisions. One reason is that I can show my ignorance and get away with it. I enjoy sharing house experiences: school, jail, and whore house. But what is their worth?? We have a gun forum, but we may be moving away from our mission. How? By our spending too much time and effort blowing our horns in the General Forum. It is here that personality and philosophical clashes occur. Moderators fret about thread drift because it disrupts organization. If we are not careful, we will end up with forum drift.

[BehindBlueI's]

Umm, would the COVID thread (not the politics/econ one), or the "cellular networks are down" thread go into that sub forum? They are current events, the former has had some political drifts, but they contain information that folks who still want to avoid the nastiness that has been happening in GD would want to see.

It depends on how it's implemented. I hadn't originally thought to include all current events in with politics. Remember right now we're just spitballing. No decisions have been made, and certainly no rules have been formed. This is information gathering and then ultimately up to LL how to implement any, or no, changes.

[Wondering Beard]

It depends on how it's implemented. I hadn't originally thought to include all current events in with politics. Remember right now we're just spitballing. No decisions have been made, and certainly no rules have been formed. This is information gathering and then ultimately up to LL how to implement any, or no, changes.

Oh, I understand :-)

I guess, if it's implemented, the rules are going to need to be pretty precise.

[blues]

I voted "no" an hour or two back, but I could live with some sort of descriptor to warn off the innocent. Not everyone enjoys the same cup of tea.

[BehindBlueI's]

I voted "no" an hour or two back, but I could live with some sort of descriptor to warn off the innocent. Not everyone enjoys the same cup of tea.

Well, yeah. A cup isn't a lot of tea so nobody would get very much. It's also more sanitary if everyone has their own cup.

Everyone should have their own cup of tea.

[blues]

Well, yeah. A cup isn't a lot of tea so nobody would get very much. It's also more sanitary if everyone has their own cup.

Everyone should have their own cup of tea.

You see how you po-leece roll? Here I was trying to meet you halfway...but you had to get all up in my face. Now we gonna have to take it down to the nitty-gritty.



https://youtu.be/P2v8IgJdsm4

[Wondering Beard]

You see how you po-leece roll? Here I was trying to meet you halfway...but you had to get all up in my face. Now we gonna have to take it down to the nitty-gritty.



https://youtu.be/P2v8IgJdsm4

I'm just going to give a 'like' to the video. The rest of what you all 're doin', I don't get.

[olstyn]

That's right, I didn't properly extend my statement to answer your question. Site supporters generally provide better content than non-site-supporters because they're invested in the forum, and because it is a good and valid thing to recognize that someone is providing you with value and to in turn reward them with money.

I did not state the negative on purpose. I don't assert that people who don't choose to be site supporters have poor character, just that people who are have evidenced good character.


You didn't ask me but I've always thought you added to any conversation you participated in...and have never viewed anything of yours that comes to mind as objectionable.

Not to turn a nice divisive thread into a love-fest, but I have to say I appreciate both of you taking the time to respond so cordially. Another venue I had a conversation in today was nearly abusive in the way I was shouted down for simply trying to get someone to listen to a moderate opinion which I stated that I found to be persuasive, and the contrast coming back here and finding your replies waiting for me is downright refreshing.

[BehindBlueI's]

You see how you po-leece roll? Here I was trying to meet you halfway...but you had to get all up in my face. Now we gonna have to take it down to the nitty-gritty.



https://youtu.be/P2v8IgJdsm4

I like Southern Culture on the Skids' version better...

[blues]

I like Southern Culture on the Skids' version better...

North Carolina, yo!

[theJanitor]

Not completely on topic, but I'd like to see an INTEL forum, and a separate discussion thread in GD created for an active event

Say, for example, we have riots in a specific city. I'd like to have a thread in the INTEL forum with only info (first hand accounts, news links, videos, etc.) and without commentary. We might have residents or LE working the area, that would like uncluttered INFO on the situation, that they might not have otherwise. They don't have the time or opportunity so sift through the BS, and their well-being can benefit from the clarity of info. A discussion thread of the event can be in GD.

This format would work, for Active Shooters, Hurricanes, Wildfires, Amber Alerts, etc.

[hiro]

Not completely on topic, but I'd like to see an INTEL forum, and a separate discussion thread in GD created for an active event

Say, for example, we have riots in a specific city. I'd like to have a thread in the INTEL forum with only info (first hand accounts, news links, videos, etc.) and without commentary. We might have residents or LE working the area, that would like uncluttered INFO on the situation, that they might not have otherwise. They don't have the time or opportunity so sift through the BS, and their well-being can benefit from the clarity of info. A discussion thread of the event can be in GD.

This format would work, for Active Shooters, Hurricanes, Wildfires, Amber Alerts, etc.

If my memory serves me correctly, the thread on lightfighter for the Christopher Dorner manhunt is an excellent example of this.

[MichaelD]

I'm on Tapatalk at the moment, so I can't see the poll. Yes, we need a subforum, and it should be open to all after six months of membership or some such fairly long probationary period. Not keen on keeping such a thing site-supporter only.

[theJanitor]

If my memory serves me correctly, the thread on lightfighter for the Christopher Dorner manhunt is an excellent example of this.

Yup. And the Baltimore riots too

[olstyn]

I'm on Tapatalk at the moment, so I can't see the poll. Yes, we need a subforum, and it should be open to all after six months of membership or some such fairly long probationary period. Not keen on keeping such a thing site-supporter only.

That's an interesting compromise - it would let basically everyone participate, but ensure that nobody who is a "drive by" could register an account, stir shit up, and then disappear.

[Zincwarrior]

It depends on how it's implemented. I hadn't originally thought to include all current events in with politics. Remember right now we're just spitballing. No decisions have been made, and certainly no rules have been formed. This is information gathering and then ultimately up to LL how to implement any, or no, changes.

Remember before you get sucked in, this is a pistol (gun) forum, not a politics forum. While they are interesting and fun to argue about, the mission of the board is related to firearms, and secondarily why I suck so bad in competitions. Be careful you don't drop yourself into a massive amount of work and garbage with minimal gain.

[Sig_Fiend]

Speaking as someone who has started and administrated a decent-sized forum for over a decade, my vote is make it a separate section. Much easier to manage and funnel everything there. Politics is like a nuclear hand grenade waiting to go off in every thread. Best not to infect the rest of the site too much when it can be avoided. Even better, maybe consider it being a separate, member-only section that is not publicly accessible...

Also, other considerations. When does politics move the goal post forward or not for the intent of the site? Speaking professionally as an SEO, it doesn't on this site IMO, except as relates specifically to firearms and crime-related politics. Sites always risk marginalizing themselves when they stray too far from their stated purpose, focus, and subject matter. Every site doesn't have to address all subject matter. At face value, based on the name/domain name, I would expect PF to be ~80% about pistols. Straying too far from that, IMO, risks devaluing the nature of the brand as "just another forum".

[JHC]

With something around or just over 170 threads on ignore, I really hope this change is implemented. As much as I like PF for discussions of shooting I don't much care for the cultural/political threads.

[beenalongtime]

The staff has been discussing the possibility of creating a sub-forum specifically for political and hot-button issues and to then leave general discussion for less controversial and more social topics. This would allow the people who just want to bullshit with friends to do so without having to "ignore thread" multiple times if they don't want to engage in the political discussions. Especially now, we understand that this can be rather divisive.

We'd like input from the membership and if it would be open to all members or only to site supporters (meaning for non-site supporters, there would not be an option for political discourse).

This would also apply to the "memes" thread, where political content would go in a new meme thread in the new sub-forum.

Lack of civility or getting butt hurt over what's deemed "political" would result in loss of access to the sub-forum.

This is all spit-balling now and nothing has been decided, so we want your input.

Thoughts?

(Poll is up and voting isn't public)

I am not going to go through this whole thread (probably covered by others, sorry).
The poll is by no means complete.
What is easy for mods, verses what is going to cause SO much more work.
My view is the bolded area, is only going to cause more work.
On multiple forums, I am on, a politics section is the section that causes members to go away forever.
This is by choice, where the bolded quote means are you going to start banning members that make a political comment somewhere because as a non site supporter, they have no access?

I didn't realize the joke about the pistol forum, going away, (dagga) was taken seriously and the politics forum is the way to do that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I really don't care. My view is that moderating it will be a shit show. Looking at some recent crap on racial issues, who needs that? Also, moderating another forum, we found that we get folks who ONLY post in the the non gun forum. While some is nice chat (like in General here), most is the same folks ranting politically, usually on one side of the spectrum. They contribute nothing to the technical side.

Pure politics will attract nuts of all the spectrum. Who needs that?

[BN]

I don't have any thread, or sub forum, or for that matter any member on 'ignore', at least as far as I can remember. As those irritating, to me, posts show up in any GD thread, I can simply skip them (often enough the name of the poster or the first few sentences tell me all that I need to know) but I can still read the posts of those who are more measured, or have a point that can be discussed less "passionately", or get a point of view that I hadn't thought about. Put those discussions in one sub forum and that is most likely the one I will put on ignore and miss on some of the more intelligent comments that would make me think. Spread out as they are now, I can much more easily pick and choose and I'd rather do that and be irritated every so often than put a whole bunch of discussions on 'ignore'.



This is the way I do it.

I'm going to vote no. I just clicked on new posts and there were only 11 out 40 threads that I am going to read. I always click new posts and never just go to the forums and sub forums. I read threads I find interesting and ignore the rest. I usually don't know what sub forum it is in.

I love thread drift. :) Some of the best stuff comes out with thread drift. ;)

[scjbash]

Since mods here are shit wasn't an option I voted yes.

[scjbash]

And the Baltimore riots too

Edit: nevermind, was thinking about the Ferguson riot thread.

[hiro]

This is the way I do it.

I'm going to vote no. I just clicked on new posts and there were only 11 out 40 threads that I am going to read. I always click new posts and never just go to the forums and sub forums. I read threads I find interesting and ignore the rest. I usually don't know what sub forum it is in.

I love thread drift. :) Some of the best stuff comes out with thread drift. ;)

What I don't understand is how a new sub forum would hinder you doing the above?

I use the new post button almost exclusively, I'm also experimenting with ignore threads. Previously I had a bunch of members and forums on ignore. It is a rare occasion that a political thread interests me but that said, subjects relating to the 2A do.

A new sub forum for politics and one for 2A would allow me to bulk filter what I don't want to read but make no difference to those interested in politics. At the end of the day it's a convenience. But if I've been smart and not looked at the forum all day, hitting that new posts thread might not be 4 or more pages long and I'm just not going to look through all 4 pages to decide what to read meaning I'll read more which I'd guess is the forums wish.

[pooty]

we should do a F.A.S.T. shoot out of YESes vs NOes.
Whichever side has more Advanced scorers wins.

[Spartan1980]

#1 is a solid point, and perhaps worthy of it's own forum either way. A "2nd amendment legal/political" forum where court cases, pending legislation proposals, etc. could be showcased outside of the air fryer/chainsaw/pictures of trees sort of threads may actually get those topics more exposure.

#2 I've already touched on. It would not be Romper Room rules and would likely be more strictly monitored then GD as far as needing to stay on topic, civility, etc.

If it goes like this I'm a yes. I feel it's important to segregate 2A from all other political BS, especially on this forum because of the magnitude of intellect here. One can get "Bubba's Guide the the 2A" almost anywhere, but P-F is definitely NOT that. I just hate to see it blended in with all the other political issues as it just diminishes some of P-F's value.

[Hambo]

My experience with forums that have a political section is that you will find a whole new group of members who only post in the politics subforum. The other thing I've seen is that it's never a discussion. Those who disagree with the majority get piled on, which we already see here. No good comes of any of it.

I would vote for option C: no political threads. There are plenty of forums where you can hear your favorite bias or argue endlessly with those who oppose you.

Since that is unlikely to be popular, it's just one more forum I have to block.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My experience is exactly that. The political subforum in a dedicated topic like this is usually just a circle jerk, attaboy of one political viewpoint. It just leads to ill will for those who decide to play in it. I agree, again from experience, it will be full of folks who just post their viewpoint over and over again and will contribute little to the technical nature of overall p-f.

While some topics do mention politics as a necessary component of technical discussions, like nuances of an assault weapons ban or evaluation of police actions, pure politics is a waste of time for p-f.

If we do have a subforum, if you just become a total denizen of that, the moderators should toss your butt.

[Shoresy]

My experience with forums that have a political section is that you will find a whole new group of members who only post in the politics subforum. The other thing I've seen is that it's never a discussion. Those who disagree with the majority get piled on, which we already see here. No good comes of any of it.

I would vote for option C: no political threads. There are plenty of forums where you can hear your favorite bias or argue endlessly with those who oppose you.

Since that is unlikely to be popular, it's just one more forum I have to block.

Just my observation from a few forums with that rule - it invariably asks the staff to decide what is/isn't political and then fights ensue over what threads are left open and which ones are closed due to "politics" (is it "politics" or is it "current events"? On this forum those two topics tend to tread VERY closely to each other), and in the end it tended to make things worse. Members (who were otherwise well-behaved) started taking shots at each other in other threads, both in the form of personal attacks (because someone else got a "win" on me, and now's my chance to hit back) and in making snide comments that didn't overtly argue a political point but led to a very clear "what did you mean by that/oh, nothing...", as well as intentionally taking a threads in a political direction with the express intention of getting them closed.

That's not to say it couldn't work with effective moderation... but I foresee the workload going through the roof for the mods. Shutting down politics always seemed to throw gas on the drama fire (and you're always either pulling the trigger too early or tensions get high and someone has to get the last word); IMO, asking for/enforcing grown-up behavior is more effective and I think as far as behavior goes, this is one of the better communities on the internet where that approach would work.

[Dan_S]

I don’t really care for the political nonsense.

If LL decided to crack down on that sort of subject matter, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings, however that would be accomplished.

[FrankinCA]

I voted No. other gun forums have “politics” and that is where things get dicey. I would hate to see folks here get into political debates and start ignoring each other or getting banned. This is one of if not the best firearm forums. People here really know their shit. On top of that, there are a lot of very helpful people . I also like the ribbing everyone dishes out....keep as is please..

F

[BobLoblaw]

I voted yes so I can ignore all political threads with one click. Political discourse is part of the reason I bailed on almost all social media platforms. I bet a lot of PF lurkers dislike politics.

[hiro]

Now that the poll has closed have you pondered the options?

Of course, now that I have GD back on ignore, I might have missed the creation of the politics sub-forum.

[BehindBlueI's]

Now that the poll has closed have you pondered the options?

Of course, now that I have GD back on ignore, I might have missed the creation of the politics sub-forum.

It's ultimately up to LittleLebowski and he's been a bit busy.