Yeah, it's on the list of things to look at. Swamped at the moment.
Originally Posted by GuiltySpark
Originally Posted by Hedgehogey
Seriously though, I understand why a restricted forum would appeal to you guys, but you have to take a step back and look from the outside in.
Speaking as a civilian, the examples Guiltyspark gave are likely to engender understanding more than anything, whereas hiding from scrutiny is only going to reinforce our suspicions, and the perception that some of you guys would really prefer to live in a Heinlen like fantasy.
Moderation with an IRON FIST seems to work okay for DHS.
Edit: I'd also like to add that reading the viewpoints and experiences of the LEO and military members really has raised my appreciation for those professions, even if it doesn't seem like it (I know I've been very vocal about police brutality on here), it really would be a shame to hide those points of view away (and some of the stories are fucking hilarious).
Last edited by Lu Tze; 5/05/2009 8:39pm at .
The rest of your post seems to indicate that we're both on the same page, but this portion I've quoted brings to mind something I forgot to mention in my previous post (dinner was almost ready).
Originally Posted by Lu Tze
If this site's access controls can't facilitate the level of granularity I've already proposed, surely the DHS model (and, for that matter, the name) would apply almost as well. Here is a slight modification to the DHS standard that might work:
By default, everyone could read and post in the subforum. However, asinine posting like GuiltySpark's example would result in an immediate ban from the subforum on the first offense, possibly accompanied by a non-permanent ban from Bullshido itself. The only problem with that is that there's no protection from some asshole creating duplicate accounts.
However order can be maintained, I think it's very important that us civilians be allowed to see all but the most sensitive information.
I'll bet the subforum is already up and running.
It's just a military-industrial secret.
The "have-you-given-it-any-further-thought" questions, purportedly to Phrost, are mere diversionary tictacs.
I like tictacs.
Originally Posted by Hedgehogey
It would seem that you're making the case for a subforum that much stronger. You've essentially offered nothing but dripping sarcasm and a thinly veiled insult. Congrats on douching up the place.
I'm for it. I have some questions I'd like to ask that I don't think I'd want to ask publically. I can understand how it would perhaps slight some worthy non-military/LEO, but if it were made invite only and the people who were brought in were worth discussing things with, I wouldn't see a problem with it.
if OPSEC is not going to be violated (and promptly deleted if it is), then i don't see why valuable information giving insight to the LEO and military community would be private.
i understand guiltyspark's concern about posting about very emotionally charged and sensitive issues being met with "DOOD, U HAZ TEH SUX!!!!! FUK TEH KOPZ IN AZZ HOLE!!1!111!!111!!!ELEVENTEEN!!!!!!!! LOLOCAUST!!!!!!!"
but, if posting is restricted to those that have the tags, that leaves them with freedom from thread shittery by the idiots who would line up to put in their .02 and it gives us civies the ability to absorb more information. you would think that a website that prides itself on open and available information that is verifiable and accurate, we would not want restricted forums.
i know the BBC is restricted, and curiosity was about 25% of why i did a supporting membership, but anybody can fork over 20 bucks and see the BBC until they start acting like a puddle of used douche water. it isn't that easy for military/leo only forums.
some may wonder why i am so in favor of having these forums as transparent as possible. the fact is that i come from a very strong military family. i, unfortunately, was unable to serve my country in such a fashion. however, the servicemen in my family don't talk about anything except for the most vague of refrences. i have/had friends and clients that are/were LEO, but all i hear about are the stories of the dumb criminal of the day and gripes about shitty hours.
i would just like to be able to get more insight about people close to me. to try to understand my friends and family a little better.
finally, having this forum open, could help dispell a lot of the myths, lies, and bullshit that circulates around the military and LEO, especially LEO.
I don't think that the things that could be discussed would fall into the categories you're listing, Kimbo.
Do we really want people like Tharuz (or those like him) reading tactical shooting tips from the pros? Should some anti-war geek have access to discussion about how it feels to deal with the losing a comrade in arms or shooting a civilian?
I can see your points here, Kimbo, but I think the larger idea is that an additional filter is wanted to exclude some undesirables from jumping into an area that they have no experience in. I would support an invite only section with a review of an individual's posting history. I would not give a 30 trial period and then boot someone. I think I'd rather have a 30 day period where someone is screened and selected and then invited and then given a 30 day review. Sounds complicated, but really giving just anyone access for 30 days gives them access to chatter before they are opted out. Seems like it should be the other way around.
Again, I like the forum and read about you guys talk about the stuff that you see going on from a perspective that I(or should I say we?) usually never see or would have no chance to see at all. All people get as input is what the media coverage is showing them, you are part of the freedom of information, the other side of the story that makes the picture a lot complete. Think about it...
Kimbo and MC, thanks for adding some depth to the call for transparency.
7thSamurai, I think your examples supporting the need for privacy only really show the need for tight moderation.
With regard to tactical shooting, what exactly is the harm of people reading such tips? This boils down to the same argument made by the NRA types over the years: the fault lies not with the gun, but with the person who used the gun to harm others.
If people are already known by name as ones who would **** up the subforum, surely they can be blocked from the outset.
As for the "antiwar geek" you mentioned, it sounds like you're already set to ignore (though not to the exclusion of reporting for ban) posts from such users. I am primarily antiwar myself, but I'm not pathological about it. An unnamed quote from my screen saver articulates my position well: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggy' until you can find a rock." Someone who is genuinely antiwar would be well served by reading discussions of such subjects as you mentioned, and being generally opposed to waging war doesn't make one a shithead automatically.
The problem I see with making the subforum invitation only is the difficulty of finding everyone who would be worthy of an invitation. I count myself in that group but, apart from posts such as this which I regard as well-reasoned and respectful, one might having difficulty proving my claim via my post history. Even if I'm validated by my post history, who's going to take the time to look through nearly 500 posts? Bear in mind that my post history isn't even remotely as deep as the majority of Bullies'.
My point is that assholes can and should be dealt with harshly and quickly, but Americans need to see the realities of war and law enforcement. From the very beginning of the war in Iraq, civilians have been deliberately separated from the consequences, good and bad, of our armed forces' involvement there. From the sanitized language of "transport tubes" to the clusterfuck of veteran's affairs, every citizen needs to understand what's really happening so that we can all come to grips with the war that's been paid on credit while we've been told to do our part by...shopping. Damn it, how long will it take for people to learn that bullshit does infinitely more harm than the truth?!
Last edited by Robstafarian; 5/06/2009 2:13pm at .
Reason: Grammar edits.
i totally agree that undesirable posters have no business posting in this proposed forum. i myself have no business making posts in this forum. all i could offer is "hai guyz that thing u sayd is teh KOOLEST". even if it wasn't read only for me, i probably would treat it as such. the same way i do with the advanced technique forum. i read every single post there, but i never have anything to say (unless i forget what forum im reading). i'm sure many others would feel the same, and not mind they are on read only status.
Originally Posted by 7thSamurai
as far as your example with tharuz goes, no i do not want him reading tactical shooting tips. but then again, i don't want him wearing shoes with laces either. he's still needing the velcroe orthopeidic sneakers.
as far as "invite only goes", what criteria would you have? how would somebody even know if they should ask because they might get told to **** off.
take me for instance. sometimes, i rival 3moose1 for thread shittery, but other times i'm a decent member of this community. which part of my post history would you look at?
transparancy is what sets us apart from bullshit. it isn't our skill (collective or individual), our pretty website, our high quality gear in the rupture store or our fighting methodologies. all these things are great and HELP us be the best resource for MA on the net, but it is our extreme level of transparancy that we subscribe to and force upon others that MAKE us the best.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO