Guns & Ammo

[crashdive123]

The thing about the zombie hunters or any other group like that - they will only go as far as the forum (all of us) allow them. All forums take on the personality of the members. As people come and go, that personality shifts a bit. A sub-forum on here about guns may attract more people that only have guns as an interest, but then might learn what the rest of the forum is about. How many times has somebody posted I came here looking for an answer to one thing and stayed for something entirely different? Just like with trolls, if you don't feed the zombie hunters they'll go away ---- or it could make for an evening of cheap entertainment.

[Sourdough]

Alaska Outdoors Forums does not seem to have any of these problems. They have a lot of moderators or so it seems, and they appear subject specific. They do not bully the conversation, but they are quick to throw the challenge flag for Bull Spit. And if they call obvious Bull Spit it does clear up quicker than a member challenging another member on Bull Spit as that just seems to escalate up.

I agree with Remy that it will attract a certain type of member.

As to the Super Moderator not having any special influence, that is Horse Apples. In theory maybe, but they can totally change the direction of a thread. This is even more true if the post second or third or early in the life of a thread, which they always do.

Most people are followers, and crave acceptance, they will follow the elders, even more so if they are clueless about the subject. So what you get is Rick states his opinion in the second or third post, and everyone the fence figures I'll follow Ricks lead. Then the threads course is set.

I would rather see the super moderators stay in the back round. And post only to keep the conversation moving. And the moderators are nearly always on the same side, so why debate three moderators and there followers. The objective is open conversation.

It is somewhat like local talk radio, the host can mute any caller, or cut him short, then the host expounds for 20 minutes about his theory.

I like the Moderators, however I think you are way wrong to hope they hold "NO" special influence in point of fact they do.

As to the "Cooler" I could hold my head up and be proud of having been given ten days in the "Cooler", I could feel I went all out for my position on the subject. However a temporary "Ban", I would be humiliated, and quit, and advise where you could insert your forum.

I also feel the Owner/Administrator should stay out of discussions other than about the management of the business of the forum.....

[crashdive123]

I would rather see the super moderators stay in the back round. And post only to keep the conversation moving. Then the moderators are nearly always on the same side, so why debate three moderators and there followers.

You probably wouldn't have any moderators then. I don't post any more or less frequently since becoming a mod. I enjoy the forum and participating in it. I enjoy the interaction I have with the members.....but to sit back and just monitor - nah. Don't need a part time job.

[Sourdough]

You probably wouldn't have any moderators then. I don't post any more or less frequently since becoming a mod. I enjoy the forum and participating in it. I enjoy the interaction I have with the members.....but to sit back and just monitor - nah. Don't need a part time job.

Crash, You are my favorite Super Moderator, and you do a great job, but in truth I wish you were "Not" a moderator, only a fellow poster. I wish we did not have to have moderators, but we do.

[Rick]

Okay, then. Dissed again.

[Rick]

Under your proposal, Hope, none of the moderators would every get to post except to bail others out or come down with a heavy foot. I might as well leave if that's all I get to do.

I post as another member unless I specifically state otherwise or my post indicates otherwise. If people want to follow me or any other poster they are welcome to...or not. As they wish. None of us can control that whether you are a mod or not.

[Rick]

Now there's a good idea!

[crashdive123]

Yeah - good idea. .....and Hopeak - no more compliments - look at my avatar - you're making me blush.

[Ken]

Okay, then. Dissed again.

ELECT HOPEAK - 2012!

Oh sorry. Heh, heh, heh. Wrong thread.

[SARKY]

Let's not kid our self, People are mesmerized by lethal tools, firearms & knives, to bunker'busters, me as much as anyone, maybe more than most.

Three thoughts: Yes, to the sub-forum idea.

Two: I suggest you have two moderators who would be restricted to this new sub-forum only. Sarky would get my vote as knowledgeable, and for the other it would be good if they were in an other time zone, like East coast time or Europe.

Three: Have a way to but members in the "COOLER" for 10 Days for failure to be semi-polite. Some people are very, very passionate about there firearms; and it seems the less knowledgeable they are, the more righteous they are in they belief about ballistics.

Thanks for volunteering me.....It seems that I made through 20 years in the Navy without volunteering for a whole lot. i did get volunteered for quite a few things though

[Sourdough]

Under your proposal, Hope, none of the moderators would every get to post except to bail others out or come down with a heavy foot. I might as well leave if that's all I get to do.

I post as another member unless I specifically state otherwise or my post indicates otherwise. If people want to follow me or any other poster they are welcome to...or not. As they wish. None of us can control that whether you are a mod or not.

O.K. I don't have a issue with the moderators, I like Rick and think he does a good job as moderator, My issue is that the moderators influence intentionally or not the discussion, Period.
But so do some of the other members with strong personalities, with strong subject depth, and what is sad is that it kills a thread.

So..........What if there was Rick logged in as Rick the Super Moderator, when he needs to be Rick the Super Moderator. ALSO: Rick would have another forum name without the influential title, Sort of like Superman: He is Indiana-Rick (or Sally, or Jake, or Steve) fellow member, and when he see evil he logs in as RICK The Super Moduator......?

Kids don't talk freely with adults in the room, Criminals don't talk freely with Cops in the room. IRS agents mute tax discussions, BATF&E agents mute firearms discussions (Mostly because they don't understand their own regulations).

[crashdive123]

But as you say, strong personalities will come through regardless of any title they may have, as will those with strong subject matter knowledge. When somebody - anybody - makes a post is it intended to influence others? Maybe. By the same token, those with no clue as to what they are talking about comes through rather quickly as well, which will also influence others.

[tacticalguy]

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

If someone comes and asks what is the best gun to kill a zombie you have my permission to mess with them. Preferably by suggesting non-existant weapons.

"A shoulder fired rail gun that shoots aluminum ordinance at 5 times the speed of sound"

or

"A particle plasma beam that can vaporize sections of the zombie, thus preventing grow-back."

A Moonraker laser, Storm Trooper Repeater, or Type II Phaser, are also all good suggestions.

Hey!!! don't dis zombie hunters!!! Z.E.D.U All the Way!!!!!

[Chris]

O.K. I don't have a issue with the moderators, I like Rick and think he does a good job as moderator, My issue is that the moderators influence intentionally or not the discussion, Period.
But so do some of the other members with strong personalities, with strong subject depth, and what is sad is that it kills a thread.

So..........What if there was Rick logged in as Rick the Super Moderator, when he needs to be Rick the Super Moderator. ALSO: Rick would have another forum name without the influential title, Sort of like Superman: He is Indiana-Rick (or Sally, or Jake, or Steve) fellow member, and when he see evil he logs in as RICK The Super Moduator......?

Kids don't talk freely with adults in the room, Criminals don't talk freely with Cops in the room. IRS agents mute tax discussions, BATF&E agents mute firearms discussions (Mostly because they don't understand their own regulations).

You know much of the influence you talk about is correlated with, not caused by, the moderator status.

Moderators are not picked out of a hat randomly. Usually I pick the most active and knowledgable members, with activity being most important (you can't moderate if you're not here).

When Sarge was picked he had the most posts on the forum. When Rick was picked he had the most posts on the forum. When Crash was picked he had the most posts on the forum of all non-moderators.

So suppose someone didn't know they were mods (and really, they can wear any member title they like) or they weren't mods. Joe comes and posts a question and Rick, with 12,000 posts, responds, and Crash, with 10,000 posts, agrees with Rick. Then Sarge, with 3000 posts (But also a really old join date), posts agreeing with the first two. Sure, anyone might be intimidated to post something else.... but that isn't because they are moderators.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/royals.htm

Members who have been here the longest, with the most activity, gain a certain amount of respect and "presence" for lack of a better word, and thats true of any forum, nay, any discussion. A guy in the army new to Iraq wouldn't correct someone on his third tour. Someone new in town out fishing wouldn't argue about "where the fish are" with a guy who has been fishing that stream for 20 years. And yes, when certain members of a forum put in their opinion, it can be seen as weighty.

Even you, Hopeak, you have 3000 posts, you've been here awhile. I dare say, you're a royal, like it or not. You even have a following (see Ken). Soon you may have to go on tour, signing autographs and giving speeches, but such is the life of celebrity...

In anycase, requiring mods to have two logins would be annoying to them, it'd be such a hassle to switch accounts every time they needed to do something they'd never do it, in the end, they'd only ever use their mod account and you'd end up with what you have already.

The moderators are here to say, and, I dare say, in the future, there will be more of them. Perhaps... even you... sleep with one eye open!

[Sourdough]

Chris, Thank you for the clear response.

Could I request a clear mission statement for the Forum, and your vision for it's future.......?

[LudwigVan]

Back on the subject of a gun sub-forum...

I like the idea. It depends on the people posting there. Gun forums tend to attract morons, yes. But usually it has to do with the nature of the site itself. This site is mostly centric on things like hunting, foraging, gardening, surviving out in the wilderness, and sometimes self defense where weapons just happen to come up pertaining mostly to those things. Most of the sites that attract "zombie hunters" and "ninjas" and crap like that are already centric on subjects like how to shoot your way through a bird flu pandemic and so on.

For instance I have lurked at the forum of backwoods home magazine, they have like 4 weapons subforms (one for pistols, one for knives, one for rifles/shotguns, and one for general weapons discussion) and they don't really have any dumb posts in said sections, even when people from the conspiricy section come over there.

Immature "shoot it out" people usually don't come to a forum where we talk about gardening as often as we do guns.

[SARKY]

Well...i am against the "guns and ammo" sub-forum.

As soon as you start making guns and ammo part of a forum, you get a different vibe.

There are a lot of forums dedicated to firearms.

I believe this forum has something special (no...not Rick), a niche...broadening this niche is good, as with the database on wild plants, but broadening it with a sub-forum on something as common as guns and ammo might turn this place into something we have seen before.

Your forum is great, because it is balanced...we do have threads about firearms...but they are not a majority, and are always kept light and free of obsessive gun mentalities.


I am a fervent defender of our second amendment rights. I am a responsible firearm owner...and if i want to talk guns, i go on gun sites.

The primary subjects related to guns here are still for the most part linked to survival...i believe the 10/22 has received the most attention. So far it makes sense.
Starting threads about P556s, ARs, AKs and MP5s will bring us closer to your regular survivalist forum...

Is this a survivalist forum ?
I do not believe it is...

I must disagree with you, A firearm is really no different than any other tool in your kit. It May be a little more specialized than most of the tools in your kit, but so would a bow or an atlatl. As long as the threads are within the realm of survival and defense, I see no problem. Look, some of my close friends call me a gun nut, I prefer the term enthusiast. I am also an enthusiast of edged tools/weapons as I am a member of St. Michaels Guild which is a RenFaire european martial arts group (can you say live steel sword/dagger/quarter staff fighting). I also shoot bow and have hunted with longbow, recurves and compound. For hunting I have always prefered the single shots wether it is bow, blackpowder or centerfire. Save the multi shot firearms for defense (too many variables)
Firearms, bows, spears, etc. are as much a part of the survival discussion as any other tool in your kit.

[Ole WV Coot]

My problem with a firearms forum is the complication of a tool. All you need to do is take a look at a rimfire forum with more ways to modify a 10/22, the whole darn thing is dedicated to one gun. Most of us have a few we are kinda proud of, but all our modifications don't have anything to do with survival. I have some I have never fired, some never been out of the back yard where I may fire a few rounds. I could write all day about firearms I have, want, bought & sold but it don't have much to do with survival. Those I rely on are not fancy, few mods and very dependable and if I get a scratch on one it won't bring tears to my eyes, same with knives. Never sharpened, never carried and worth too much to use. Knives I use I make. I still haven't found a Beretta that went for a tour of the house so let's leave things as they are. Nothing wrong with talking about firearms but some of us(me) tend to go overboard sometimes.

[endurance]

I know I'm really too new to have much of a vote, but one of the things that drew me to this site was the fact that there's a balance and integration of the gun talk. There are times it is relevant to general survival, there's time it's relevant to chat, and there's times it's relevant in kits. I've been a part of forums that have completely banned guns and I've been a part of forums that don't talk about anything but guns. I think you're walking a risky path when you separate them out and attract an audience that may only be interested in that sub-forum. I also think it takes away from the general discussion about survival when someone is talking about their kit and a weapon they may carry and it turns to a thread about how many rounds is approriate for a wilderness kit.

As for attracting new members to get the number of site hits up, that's been the downfall of nearly every forum I've watched collapse. It invites chaos. You have some great moderators here, but when the chaff outweighs the wheat, the core members will want to be here less and less.

[crashdive123]

What some of us are concerned about, is not our understanding of this tool, it is the thousands of obsessive individuals that could flood this forum, and disrupt its flow...its direction.

I could of course...be totally wrong about this feeling.

Think of how busy it could keep you.