What the definition of "political" is

S

springmom

New member
Is it just me, or has it been right down crunchy around here lately? And have threads been shut down faster and faster?

The description of this thread, that you see on the forums page is: "Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues". But "general political issues" seem to die very quick deaths in some instances. And I'm wondering why.

Is there an underlying expectation that only gun-related general political issues will stay open? Is it a matter of the "crunchy factor", and getting heated gets them closed? If it must be gun related, then it would be good for the forums page to say so, and if it can be a real round-table, with tinfoil hats and ACLU members all welcome to have their say, then let it be that.

I do not say any of this with any anger or rancor toward anyone, member or moderator. But I don't think the expectations are clear, at least not to me.

My vote, for what little it's worth, is let it be a real round table. If somebody starts cussing or using racial epithets, ban the poster, but leave the thread. Excise any posts that are ugly or threatening or racist, but leave the discussions.

My highly inflated, probably unnecessary, $.02.

Springmom
 
Thanks, Leif. I had missed the first set-to over this back in June, because I was not reading L&P much back then. The only thing that I got out of that thread, unfortunately, is that the question generates a lot of heat all around, which I don't mean to do; and that the question never got answered.

I'd rather see individual posts deleted and/or individual posters banned, than to see threads locked too fast. Some threads certainly deserve the lock, because they're just beyond redemption from the get-go. But others get crunchy or somebody says something ugly and bam. I'd like to see the "bam" go to the guy that deserves it, myself.

Thanks for the heads up and the info.

Springmom
 
The only thing that I got out of that thread, unfortunately, is that the question generates a lot of heat all around, which I don't mean to do; and that the question never got answered.
Click to expand...

So, you basically got the point of the thread, then? ;)

It's politics, people get their noses in a twist at times, myself included. Seeing as the country has it's nose in a twist at the moment, I suppose that it's not all that surprising. Basically, I think that the general guideline for L&P is to try to keep it firearms/RKBA/law enforcement related and to keep some distance from the more inflammatory topics (gay marriage, abortion, my deity can pick on your deity with impunity, etc.). However, somebody please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Springmom, you have asked a reasonable question and deserve a reasonable answer.

I can't give you any opinions other than my own. Since I'm one of the mods listed for L&P, you can take it for what that's worth, remembering that TheBluesMan, Long Path and Rich also moderate this forum and their opinions may be somewhat different than mine. Most likely, they are!

With that caveat then...

TFL is a firearms and civil liberties board. The L&P forum may well be the centerpiece at TFL, but it should not be a place to come listen to party platforms. There are other places that are better suited for that. The L&P forum is not a Social Club for general hob-nobbing. We are not a Joke Repository. We are not News Central - be it CNN, Fox or any other news source (but, please read on). L&P is not the place for "what if" scenarios.

Currently, we have members who don't know and don't care about the "gun parts" of the board and don't contribute anything to any other part of the board. They do nothing but spout talking points from one party platform or the other. Or they give us the latest opinion they heard from their favorite pol pundit. They are thoroughly argumentative and cruise for statements from the other side to refute and/or vilify.

There is plenty of legislation, at the national level, that is being proposed that would affect all of us, in one way or another. Reporting on such legislation and then commenting upon what the person thinks it may do or how it may affect us, is an example of reasonable discussion. Whether or not the discussion is about the legal aspects or about the political aspects, the tone should be set by the thread originator.

The same thing goes for those that want to report a "news" item. If you can't or won't tell us why you dropped the article on the thread and why it is relevant to TFL, don't expect it (the thread or your post, as the case may be) to survive. By this I mean, write a complete paragraph or two, explaining why you think it is a relevant item to the forum.

Submitting a thread by dropping an article and making a one line comment is not expounding why you think it's a relevant topic. It will get closed.

Similarly, opening a thread about a real political issue, but doing so in a disingenuous manner will also get it closed. (see this thread for an excellent and intentional example!)

Now I realize, springmom, that this isn't so much a definition of what "political" is as an explanation of how I go about viewing things. But I hope it helps nonetheless.
 
Actually, that was helpful. Thanks. I was looking more for a gestalt of what is ok/not ok than a list of rules anyway....you can't DO a list of rules for something this general, unless you want to be writing new rules 'til Judgment Day.

Thank you for answering :)

Springmom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top