What Motivates Would-Be Board Censors?

[Abraham]

Every so often I'll read an opinion that a subject has been "discussed enough", ah, according to them...

I wonder what motivates this type presumption.

No one forces participation.

Are they so uncomfortable with whatever subject being discussed they decide to give a go at unentitled censoring?

What hubris.

Or is it a lament about not having control?

Obviously I don't get it.

Anyone?

[Purplehood]

I think we have beat this subject to death...

[The Annoyed Man]

I think we have beat this subject to death...

[Abraham]

Russell,

No.

Of late, it's happening in the various O.C. discussions and it seems to raise it's ugly head every now and then, irrespective of subject.

Purplehood did a good take on our delicate, would-be moderators.

P.S.
I meant to post this topic in the "Off Topic" area and slipped up. It's what happens when I post fatigued - my lame excuse.

Mea Culpa!

[Keith B]

P.S.
I meant to post this topic in the "Off Topic" area and slipped up. It's what happens when I post fatigued - my lame excuse.

Mea Culpa!

It is in the Off Topic area now.

[stevie_d_64]

Three beautiful women, one a blond, another a brunette, and the other a redhead were walking down the sidewalk and...

See, unless you post it for discussion, nobody will know what you are thinking about it...

I've never really been effected by the repetitiveness of a topic...Most folks just ignore it if they don't want to participate in the discussion...Doesn't hurt my feelings...

[TheArmedFarmer]

Well, the forum belongs to Chas and it's his private property. If he doesn't like a discussion, he can put a stop to it. This may not be to everyone's liking, but it is his right.

You could start your own gun forum and then you could do things your way and I would defend that, too. But keep in mind that forum conversations are often on a slippery slope and only the experience that comes with moderating such a forum gives you the ability to know when to put a lock on a thread. I assure you, it's not nearly as easy as it looks from the members' point of view.

(And for the record, I was the last poster in a recent O.C. thread that got locked, and I didn't like the thread being locked as I thought we were having an interesting conversation. Nevertheless, I respect the board owner to make the decisions that he deems correct for his website.)

[LarryH]

I believe the OP was asking about non-moderators who, sometimes rather gruffly, point out that this topic has been "beat to death" before.

IMHO, they are doing so because they have been here through those, sometimes heated, discussions and don't want to see it again.

Others will point out those previous threads and suggest that if one has a truly new, fresh point to bring up, they could resurrect one of the previous threads.

As has been mentioned, those who object to the topic are under no obligation to read any thread they don't want to read.

You can see the same dynamic on 'most any fairly busy forum, whether the topic is guitars, guns, cars, fishing rods or whatever.

[TheArmedFarmer]

I believe the OP was asking about non-moderators who, sometimes rather gruffly, point out that this topic has been "beat to death" before.

Ahh, you're right. I was replying to my misunderstanding.

[NcongruNt]

I believe the OP was asking about non-moderators who, sometimes rather gruffly, point out that this topic has been "beat to death" before.

IMHO, they are doing so because they have been here through those, sometimes heated, discussions and don't want to see it again.

Others will point out those previous threads and suggest that if one has a truly new, fresh point to bring up, they could resurrect one of the previous threads.

As has been mentioned, those who object to the topic are under no obligation to read any thread they don't want to read.

You can see the same dynamic on 'most any fairly busy forum, whether the topic is guitars, guns, cars, fishing rods or whatever.

As I have been one of these folks referring to previous threads, I'll comment here.

While you mention we don't have to read a thread, how are we supposed to participate if we don't read threads? I've stopped counting, but I'd guess there's been something like 20 (or more) lengthy OC threads in the past year and a half or so here on these forums. You may notice that I haven't pointed to past threads recently, because there have been new developments (notably the OCDO push for a bill) that warrant new discussion.

In previous threads, however, people expend serious time and energy arguing and making the same arguments time and again, when these same discussions have played out numerous times over already. These forums exist to provide a friendly place to discuss all sorts of topics related to CHL and general gun ownership. It is a detractor to constructive discussion when people focus their energies in discussion a topic that has already addressed in depth, because they have no knowledge of previous discussions on that same topic. Rather than go through a lengthy debate and fact-finding process in a discussion, it's much more efficient to "learn from those who came before us" and build upon that collective experience. Instead of repeatedly starting from square one on a topic, it's far better to advance beyond what has already been learned and move forward from there.

If I observe people spinning their wheels on a topic that has already been discussed at length, why is it a bad thing to point out previous discussions on the same topic - especially when the very points being discussed have already been explored in considerable detail? Wouldn't it be more constructive to continue a discussion in an older thread where there is already considerable background material available for newcomers to review and consider before possibly restating what has already been said? If the member has something new to add, wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide some sort of context of previous discussion, so that those writing and reading have a better handle on the topic at hand and a more encompassing understanding of the historical statements and perspectives of members who have already approached and discussed the issue?

This also provides the added benefit that the perspectives of those who you suggest "are under no obligation to read any thread they don't want to read" can be had in current discussion without their further participation. This is valuable in the fact that instead of a having a new discussion devoid of participation from members whose knowledge may be a valuable asset to many newcomers (because they've signed off from participating in a specific topic as you suggest), their opinions and expertise are available to those new to the topic.

[DoubleJ]

yeah, everytime I come along and see:

• 1. Drinking and Carrying
  2. 1911 vs Glock
  3. OC (not pepper spray)
  4. Shooting a Dog
  5. whatever retread you can think of.....

I chuckle and say, "Gee, I wonder how many pages THIS one'll get to!!!!"
some of it, I think, is that when you read forums, to participate, no matter the topic, you have to post to "be involved."
that's fine. most people want to "feel" as though what they have to say is perhaps unique, but most definitely relevant and/or valid. Nothing wrong with that, either. I'm at the point where I feel involved just logging on here. but that's me. I used to "feel" more involved if I posted a response to every thread I chanced across. sometimes, that didn't work out so well....

other times, you may not wanna read through the 5 pages of posts to see if anyone else has said the same thing that I'm fixin' to say. But, if you do, you may be able to refine your statement/position, or you may even find that your words are unnecessary.
I used to post all the time, then I noticed that when I reread a thread, I saw a striking familiarity after a while. it's fine, either way.

the thing is, if you're going to post in a thread, then don't get miffed if "we" post the obligatory


and remember, at the end of the day, it's still "just" the internet.




and to keep it gun related...

[anygunanywhere]

Obviously I don't get it.

Obviously.

Anygunanywhere

[Fangs]

Imagine if you had just spent the past 3 days and 97 posts talking about drinking a beer while still carrying (whether you're for or against the idea) only to have some new guy through a "There's NO tolerance for ANY alcohol in your system while carrying!!" into your perfectly unrelated (like getting pulled over while walking after having had one beer with dinner) thread. I say this because I did this, and now it makes sense why people groaned heavily before they replied semi-nicely. I hope this helps you get it.

[longhorn_92]

yeah, everytime I come along and see:

• 1. Drinking and Carrying
  2. 1911 vs Glock
  3. OC (not pepper spray)
  4. Shooting a Dog
  5. whatever retread you can think of.....

...5. CHL Badges