What about a weekly ban announcement thread?

[PaulF]

No ****.

Meanwhile, someone regularly makes a disparaging remark about fairy tales, make believe, ect. And nothing happens. So statement of fact is ban-able, but insulting someone for his belief is perfectly okay.

Please give examples of this, if not here then in a PM. Behavior you describe is against the rules, and should also be handled.

In regards to the in-thread warning: when I closed the thread I thought I would be re-opening it. After banning 4 users, I thought twice about that. It ended up staying locked, so the verbiage could have been better. My bad, I'm sorry about that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

OMG did this take turn I didn't expect. My point was to create an educational tool so that we could find a more definitive understanding of where some of these interpretive lines on rules are falling in order to prevent people from getting banned without putting an effort into being complete jackasses.

As some of you are aware I got banned for a while about a week ago. Did I deserve it? Yes. Did i understand exactly why at the time? No. Did I understand it afterwards? Yes, but only because Paul invested the time to explain exactly why he felt the need to do so in a PM I was unable to read while banned. Thanks to Paul taking the time to do this and explain it in a way conducive to avoiding future repetitions, I am left fully understanding but also aware that it involved a line that is not clearly demarcated in the rules. That said, I am convinced that we have a number of members who at least receive temporary bans on account of stumbling along a line they didn't see or understanding the subject matter of a rule in a way that is not necessarily the same as others may understand it. I am going to recycle an example and point out that some people would not consider a discussion 'religious' unless you needed at least a master's degree in a theological field to understand it and others would consider "Police arrest burglar at Baptist church" a religious discussion.

In any event, I believe that we have an issue with the absence of a firm understanding of exactly what is prohibited and I, for one, would much rather try to find ways to correct this through forming that understanding rather than pissing and moaning about getting banned.

In any event, I certainly didn't expect to see five pages of where this has gone since last night.

 

[bwframe]

...I believe that we have an issue with the absence of a firm understanding of exactly what is prohibited and I, for one, would much rather try to find ways to correct this through forming that understanding rather than pissing and moaning about getting banned.
...

No offense, but I think Churchmouse summed it up pretty well:

It only takes a little slip when you live on the edge....

 

[Sylvain]

Not banned

 

[Expat]

Not banned

so no bacon?

 

[Sylvain]

so no bacon?

You can have bacon but I wont be the one providing it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No offense, but I think Churchmouse summed it up pretty well:

You will also find that often this is true until viewed from a different perspective, then that divide becomes much more clear.

I will give you an example: Back in the Dark Ages when I was in training with the Department of Correction, we spent some time on the issue that inmates had been ruled to have a right to possess religious symbols, yet some religious symbols could be prohibited and/or confiscated as contraband. Two examples were introduced. The instructor held up a confiscated cloth piece about 3 feet square with Satanic images on it. Most of the potential reasons why this could be considered out of bounds were theological in nature--after all, we were discussing religion. The second example was that he took the metal stand with his name on a plate off of his desk and declared this to be a 'religious symbol'. Again, my thoughts turned theological. After a few efforts on my part and that of several others, then the truth came out. The Satanist cloth was contraband because it had been made out of a state-owned sheet, therefore making it destruction/modification for other than its original purpose of state property and the name plate was too large and metal, thus could be fashioned into a weapon. After that paradigm shift, it all made sense. I can see the same thing happening here.

 

[bwframe]

You will also find that often this is true until viewed from a different perspective...

Again, no offense;

Maybe, if you have to explain the perspective of your posts, you should just take that post/perspective to another site more tolerant of such?
INGO is full of areas and categories to post in that stir up zero controversy. I dunno, maybe post about uh...







...guns?

 

[bwframe]

You will also find that often this is true until viewed from a different perspective...

Again, no offense;

Maybe, if you have to explain the perspective of your posts, you should just take that post/perspective to another site more tolerant of such?

INGO is full of areas and categories to post in that stir up zero controversy. I dunno, maybe post about uh...







...guns?

 

[pudly]

AINGO is full of areas and categories to post in that stir up zero controversy. I dunno, maybe post about uh...







...guns?

9mm rules!
1911 over Glock!
OC will get you killed!

 

[jamil]

It only takes a little slip when you live on the edge....

No offense, but I think Churchmouse summed it up pretty well:

Bifocals need adjusting. I seriously thought he said "sip". That completely changes the meaning.

so no bacon?

You can have bacon but I wont be the one providing it.

Do we seriously want French bacon anyway?

You will also find that often this is true until viewed from a different perspective, then that divide becomes much more clear.

I will give you an example: Back in the Dark Ages when I was in training with the Department of Correction, we spent some time on the issue that inmates had been ruled to have a right to possess religious symbols, yet some religious symbols could be prohibited and/or confiscated as contraband. Two examples were introduced. The instructor held up a confiscated cloth piece about 3 feet square with Satanic images on it. Most of the potential reasons why this could be considered out of bounds were theological in nature--after all, we were discussing religion. The second example was that he took the metal stand with his name on a plate off of his desk and declared this to be a 'religious symbol'. Again, my thoughts turned theological. After a few efforts on my part and that of several others, then the truth came out. The Satanist cloth was contraband because it had been made out of a state-owned sheet, therefore making it destruction/modification for other than its original purpose of state property and the name plate was too large and metal, thus could be fashioned into a weapon. After that paradigm shift, it all made sense. I can see the same thing happening here.

Dave, I see what you're saying. I think it's that a lot of those topics can't help but invite the subject to go past the line. For example, if we were discussing some topic of philosophy or history and someone cited a bible verse, not as a religious reference, but just as an informational reference, the subject isn't religious, but the conversation will inevitably turn to religion because people passionate about certain topics can't help themselves.

And there are people who I think intentionally post very close to the forbidden edges just to push the conversation in those forbidden directions. Trooper, for example, in his "millennials" thread HAD to know where the line was. For days leading up to that he danced around it until he leaped over the line head first in that thread.

I'd rather leave conversation open to whatever, and have the mods just ban only the people who can't handle that and delete only those posts. But I think INGO would have to have an army of Mods to do that.

 

[churchmouse]

Bifocals need adjusting. I seriously thought he said "sip". That completely changes the meaning.





Do we seriously want French bacon anyway?



Dave, I see what you're saying. I think it's that a lot of those topics can't help but invite the subject to go past the line. For example, if we were discussing some topic of philosophy or history and someone cited a bible verse, not as a religious reference, but just as an informational reference, the subject isn't religious, but the conversation will inevitably turn to religion because people passionate about certain topics can't help themselves.

And there are people who I think intentionally post very close to the forbidden edges just to push the conversation in those forbidden directions. Trooper, for example, in his "millennials" thread HAD to know where the line was. For days leading up to that he danced around it until he leaped over the line head first in that thread.

I'd rather leave conversation open to whatever, and have the mods just ban only the people who can't handle that and delete only those posts. But I think INGO would have to have an army of Mods to do that.

It is the folks like Trooper who I would really like to meet and not let him know who I am. Just to see what/how/who this cat really is. Many like him in here. Some I would like to meet with full knowledge of who I am. Just to see.

With that said 99.9% of those I have met from this forum are the best people. And I have met a lot of you.

 

[chezuki]

It is the folks like Trooper who I would really like to meet and not let him know who I am. Just to see what/how/who this cat really is. Many like him in here. Some I would like to meet with full knowledge of who I am. Just to see.

With that said 99.9% of those I have met from this forum are the best people. And I have met a lot of you.

f the police
f the millennials
f the government
Anarchy in the UK!!!

 

[chezuki]

I just want to smoke my weed and drive drunk in peace!!

(I'm working on my online Libertarian persona)

 

[churchmouse]

f the police
f the millennials
f the government
Anarchy in the UK!!!

Reported......Oh, hey Chez. Didn't know it was you.

Carry on.

 

[jamil]

f the police
f the millennials
f the government
Anarchy in the UK!!!

I'd take that more seriously if it weren't for the fact that most of them ARE millennials.

 

[bwframe]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/356472-~~~-who-banned-today-~~~.html#post5236354

 

[bwframe]

I started a break room thread you all might like. (If it's still there?)

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/356472-~~~-who-banned-today-~~~.html#post5236354

 

[Expat]

Do you guys remember that bwframe guy, he seemed like a decent chap.

 

[churchmouse]

Do you guys remember that bwframe guy, he seemed like a decent chap.

OK in my book. What ever happened to him???