View Poll Results: Should PF have a "Political Discussion" sub-forum?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, herd the cats into one pen.

    45 58.44%
  • No, leave it like it is

    32 41.56%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 91

Thread: Politics sub-forum

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    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...

  2. #32
    Hokey / Ancient JAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Quote Originally Posted by olstyn View Post
    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?
    Ignore Alien Orders

  3. #33
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    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.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  4. #34
    Member olstyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by olstyn View Post
    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.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  6. #36
    Member olstyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD View Post
    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?

  7. #37
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    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....site-supporter

  8. #38
    Site Supporter CCT125US's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    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.
    Taking a break from social media.

  9. #39
    Gray Hobbyist Wondering Beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Coterie Club
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    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.
    " La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
    "There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib

  10. #40
    Gray Hobbyist Wondering Beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Coterie Club
    Quote Originally Posted by olstyn View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yung View Post
    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....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.
    " La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
    "There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •