Big Rule & Policy Changes

[mtdawg169]

There were people doing that before last year as well. I dont agree that the site is somehow worse off as far as a knowledge base because of banned members being gone. I know of two people who were quite knowledgeable in their areas of expertise who left Because of some of the banned members.

Overall I would say the site is better than a year ago, even though I liked some of the banned members.

Good point. I've also noticed some of our best members missing for a while that had nothing to do with the Great Purge of 2015. But to me, the site has suffered to a degree, even if it is a small one. Much less interesting and less useful these days. Might have nothing to do with those people being gone, but it seems to have occurred shortly after they were booted. Just my perspective and I might be way off base, but that's how it felt to me.

 

[JWC]

41mag, no it is not a democracy at all. I understand that completely.

 

[41mag]

I get both sides to it. I do think the change is needed for the reasons stated by OS, however I too am not too fond of giving reprieve to certain ones. It will be tough to regulate and make it fair. That is why I believe Jerry is up on the "none of the above" category. Which I can understand. You know/knew the rules when.....whatever.
It is the same (scenario wise, anyway), that a guy or thug or perp runs from a cop, then tries to fight with them, then gets their ass beat or gets killed...their family is all over the news hollers" HE SUCH A GUUD BOY!! "
They knew the 'score' when they broke the 'law'

 

[fast306stang]

My vote is just have a free-for-all. No rules. We're all grown adults here. Mods give preferential (or non-preferential) treatment how they see fit. Not all mods do this but some definitely do. The only truly fair way is every man and woman for themself. It's just the Internet. I have an iggy list and use it for those people I do not wish to communicate or do business with. It's pretty simple.

 

[Okuma]

I get both sides to it. I do think the change is needed for the reasons stated by OS, however I too am not too fond of giving reprieve to certain ones. It will be tough to regulat and make it fair. That is why I believe Jerry is up on the "none of the above" category. Which I can understand. You know/knew the rules when.....whatever.
It is the same (scenario wise, anyway), that a guy or thug or perp runs from a cop, then tries to fight with them, then gets their ass beat or gets killed...their family is all over the news hollers" HE SUCH A GUUD BOY!! "
They knew the 'score' when they broke the 'law'

I get that, but what if they got beat or killed but it was for being dumb and never wearing their seat belt? The way it was people were banned because of "seat belt level" offenses.

 

[mtdawg169]

My vote is just have a free-for-all. No rules. We're all grown adults here. Mods give preferential (or non-preferential) treatment how they see fit. Not all mods do this but some definitely do. The only truly fair way is every man and woman for themself. It's just the Internet. I have an iggy list and use it for those people I do not wish to communicate or do business with. It's pretty simple.

To be honest, that didn't work so well on other sites and necessitated some changes.

 

[41mag]

Yup, goes both ways...that is why I have faith that you are intelligent enough to know who is an asshole and who is just having a bad year.

 

[fast306stang]

To be honest, that didn't work so well on other sites and necessitated some changes.

I know. It's one of those things that sounds great on paper (or in my head) but doesn't work so well in reality...

 

[2001SportTJ]

Since Echo posts on Dixie Ammo's account you might as well go ahead let him back under his actual account that was banned.

 

[sublimebeer]

How awesome is this