Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How not to treat a Man

Actually, the opposite is true. I know this from experience. About five years ago I was hired as Moderator for a forum that would make this one look like a church social. As soon as I set some standards of conduct and began weeding out the habitual troublemakers membership and participation boomed. It's still booming and with more people joining in everyday.

The reason is simple: There are far, far more people who want a pleasant, courteous place to talk guns than there are people who just like to argue.

Bravo!

We have 12,255 registered members, but that statistic is misleading in two ways:
(a) A sizable percentage of those people don't come to the Campfire any more.
(b) A sizable number of unregistered visitors are coming here every day. I suspect that the total number is a lot closer to 50,000 visitors (or maybe even more) every day.

IMHO, an all-around better solution than a single official monitor ("censor") would be for

(a) each visitor � registered or not � to be a member of an active but unofficial committee of monitors
(b) any individual � registered or not � to [/i]privately and positively[/i] ask any poster of an out-of-line or offensive post to reconsider then to modify or delete his offensive post.

The initiative would be the individual's own idea, from a typical visitor, not from a single official moderator.

His e-mail or Personal Message should be entirely positive, with no scolding or criticism. For example: The unique atmosphere that draws me to the Campfire is the air of easy camaraderie of guys sitting around a real campfire and talking about things that interest us. I would take it as a personal favor if you would help maintain that camaraderie. Would you please reconsider your comments to ________ and consider modifying or deleting them?"

Not all who offend are offensive people. Many don't intend to offend or even realize that they are offending. Give each one the behind-the-scenes suggestion and opportunity to correct himself, and you minimize the probability of making him angry or defensive, and instead give him the opportunity to show his better side publicly. Thus a private, positive plea that he reconsider his post has the potential of making him more likely not to offend again later. If he ignores or refuses your plea within a reasonable time, then it's time perhaps to post the same kind of plea on the forum.

One key to this kind of discipline is the positive nature of it, both as a private personal tactic and as an example of the Campfire's atmosphere of easy camaraderie.

And we'll have to do this for months if we ever hope to get back those who've left us, or to persuade to join us those who've already come here, stuck a toe in the water, and decided that we weren't the pool that they'd like to swim in.

First they came for the Jews and I didn't say anything because I wasn't Jewish. Then they came for the Poles and I didn't say anything because I wasn't Polish. Then they came for me and there was no one left to say anything.

(Quick reply option utilized)

Ken,
I appreciate and agree with what you would like to see. It definitely would be better for several reasons. That being said, I don't think it will/would happen by the majority. Some haven't done this because they didn't feel they had the authority to do that, and even those that would step in and say something in the manner you suggested would not have any authority or teeth to take any further actions if someone decided to keep on being a troublemaker.
Others don't like conflict or will not get involved in this manner. Some will choose to do nothing simply because of time. As much I really like the goal(s) of your idea, I don't think it will work in this situation. I hope the majority proves me wrong here or for that matter a good number of folks, but unless they have some kind of ability to take further action for those who are being intentionally offensive, it won't get better.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niem�ller (1892�1984), prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, is best-known for his poem "First They Came for the Communists", about the danger of not speaking-out when you should. The many versions of his poem include this commonly accepted version:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
Habe ich geschwiegen;
Ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
Habe ich geschwiegen;
Ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
Habe ich nicht protestiert;
Ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
Habe ich nicht protestiert;
Ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
Gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.


("When the Nazis came for the communists,
"I remained silent;
"I was not a communist.

"When they locked-up the social democrats,
"I remained silent;
"I was not a social democrat.

"When they came for the trade-unionists,
"I did not speak out;
"I was not a trade-unionist.

"When they came for the Jews,
"I did not speak out;
"I was not a Jew.

"When they came for me,
"There was no one left to speak out.")

Eerily appropriate, somehow.

Thanks!

You may be right. How sad, if you are right.

How many of the world's evils, would you guess, owe their power and their existence to "I don't want to get involved" and "let somebody else do it?"

Some wry wit once said that one week after the meek inherit the earth, the sunzabitches will have it back.

Sadly, probably more than we think.

With a group this large, you no doubt have a good number of guys that would be willing to help and would not be doing it to exercise power over others or for position sake, but to make 24 hr a better place to be. There are some forums out there that have fair-minded people in moderator type roles, that give people the benefit of the doubt, but also when needed will provide discipline for the good of the majority.

Feels that way sometimes <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

meekness does not mean weak-willed or one who is so nice he does nothing or never becomes angry.
Meek= is power under control.

And some, especially since the thought of speaking individually carries the thought of having to bear the flak alone, don't want to expose themselves to the kind of flak that I get when I speak-out. I understand and don't blame 'em for remaining safely silent, but we all sure could use their support.

Silence guarantees that the only change will be the situation getting worse � until the forum's death finally brings "peace."

Well said

Amen!

... which is probably why I love the oldie about the Quaker who let a burglar see that he was holding a 12-gauge double to his shoulder �

"Friend, I would not harm thee for the world � but thee is standing where I am about to shoot."

I've been digesting this thread/it's contents since it was first posted. Lots of opinions and personal feelings attached. Makes sense. We were all raised a bit different from the next member and we all have strong feelings about this kind of stuff.

Even though our backgrounds may differ, we all know how to push other's buttons, give compliments, minimize other's comments and beliefs and also how to build up someone's ego and/or confidence level. Lots of choices as to how we might choose to respond to other members comments or findings.

When a member chooses to "take the low road", it isn't because they don't know better as I expect some would like to assume is the case. I was never told exactly not to murder someone or to not harm women and children, but I know better than to do so, even without direction in that regard. Just the way things should be in order to keep society moving along and to not chance a meeting with "Bubba" while being housed in the "slammer". We all know how to be civil, whether we choose to do so or not and whether we were raised that way or not.

Comments made here on the 'Fire' that most members find objectionable are tolerated because there are no real consequences. These members that enjoy the "bait and hook-set" approach will continue to do so for that reason. Having said that, I'm not in favor of banning members for sharing "strong" opinions. I am, however, reluctant to enter into "discussions" with those that have a history of not only sharing "strong" opinions, but also their anger and dissatisfaction with life in general. These people are easy to discern. I'm not talking about a member who has shown an infrequent lack of judgement in their remarks either. Anyone can get caught up now and then. Members I'd rather not hear from are those that chronically bitch and moan and disagree with everything just because......well hell.... who knows?

I have read many threads, as you all have, that are just plain mean spirited and add nothing to the thread but anger and dissent. There are several members that just outright dislike each other. Such is life sometimes, but it is painfully obvious who these members are and the thread loses all continuity and substance when the head buttin' begins.

Many remarks are just way out of line and unnecessary. Also, many words used in some of these threads describing another member would be fighting words if they were actually face to face. I've actually read posts where members were challenging each other to meet and fight. Geez!

I'd like to add that sometimes we think that just because we don't use certain words or phrases that we would like to attribute to other members, we often still bait and demoralize members with less obvious phrases. "It's not rocket science" really means what? It could sound like, "hey stupid, what's so difficult about that?" to another member, especially a new member who doesn't have the 'Fire" down as well as the seniors here. I'm not advocating that somebody "proof-read" posts before they're entered.....I do suggest that we need to do that individually.

I expect that if we chose to not use just a few of the words and phrases that we do, we probably would have much better discussions and alot less conflict between posters. I'm all for sharing ideas and questioning statements that I either have issues with or experience that contradicts others findings. I'm human and I'm not immune to a well presented bait, but if we just ease up a bit on the remarks that only generate hostilities and add nothing to our shooting knowledge and hunting experiences, we'll all learn alot more.

Gunwriters, barbers, waiters, athletes, cops, taxi drivers, miners, hunters......all men. So the "How Not To Treat A Gunwriter" thread title was a real turn off for me.

Each one of us should be treated respectfully.....bottomline.

I hope that you all have successful seasons, mine starts this Saturday. Hope to share some stories with you soon.

Ken, My standard response as of the last several years to those who continually try mold others character has been: Why? There has only been one perfect Man walk the Earth. Look what we did to Him!

As of late, I have also used those words on those with good intentions, when it seems they have become excessive.

As a Friend, I have also learned that the shotgun analogy is good, but sometimes the follow-up is needed. That does no one any good, in the end.

Edict: Forgot the caps, and got page not available when trying to edit.

I'm truly sorry that it affected you that way. It wasn't meant to imply that gun-writers are entitled to any better treatment than barbers, waiters, athletes, cops, taxi drivers, miners, hunters, etc � and I assumed that anyone who read my post would see that it referred only to suppliers who by being rude to a writer would forgo his friendly cooperation with publicizing their products. It never dawned on me that (a) the heading of the post would turn anybody off or (b) that anyone would take the post to mean that everyone should be especially careful not to offend a gun-writer.

The purpose of the post was to show two things:
� that advertisers who want writers to type good prose, friendly to their products, ought to be smart enough to be at least routinely courteous to the fellows whose help they want and depend on,
and
� suppliers aren't exactly standing in long lines for the opportunity to treat writers like royalty, as so many here have indicated that they assume.

So thanks for your comment. I've taken it to heart for the valuable insight that it is.

It reminds me, too, that just about every time I visit the Campfire, I see post headers that I interpret one way but find upon reading the post that the question or comment isn't at all what I expected, from what I thought that the header meant. A recent example was a header something like "Question About Ballistics," which I thought would be a theory question that maybe I could answer for the fellow. The post under that header, however, was about the specific performance of a rifle, cartridge, and ammo that I've had no experience with � so I couldn't answer the fellow's question.

Again, thanks for the insight! Writing titles and headers is an art, not a science, not automatically obvious to all, and worth great care to develop and practice as a skill. I see from your comment that a header or title must not only give a prospective reader some indication of the content beneath it but must also not disgust or offend him by giving him a false notion of what it means � a valuable lesson, for which I'm truly grateful.

Obviously also, there are several members who just outright dislike gun-writers and eagerly latch onto any opportunity to bad-mouth one or all of us. They're the ones here who put a bad taste in our mouths and a stench in our nostrils. Fortunately for us, we can avoid 'em, and the heartburn acid is in their craws, not ours.

Ken - The gist of the thread, including the title, were not lost on me. I took all the comments/posts offered at face value as I always try to. Being far from perfect myself, while attempting to be honest in my presentation, I felt compelled to mention how the title "felt" to me. I fully understand that it was a lead in to a much broader issue, one that needed every members consideration.

My hope in posting what I did was to express, at least from my standpoint, that the subjects that you and Darren chose to author and discuss were actually one and the same. Presenting our experiences and opinions in a respectful manner was what I was trying to convey, whether we differ greatly with a post or not. Lacking either the ability or intent to do so, no need to join in with that particular discussion. Seems simple, but I know it isn't. Old dog, new tricks.

Your experiences are greatly appreciated. Several others as well. I take bits and pieces of much of what I read here at the 'Fire" and allow myself the opportunity to see if these suggestions "fit" with the way I approach shooting, hunting and in it's own way, life in general. If it works for me or mine, great. If it doesn't, it peaked my interest enough to be open to another way of doing things. That's a plus and helps to keep me grounded as well. I'm always interested in a better mousetrap.

So.....thanks for the reply and keep up the good work. Exchanging ideas, information and experience in a forum such as this has many benefits, coupled with a few pitfalls as well. With the good comes some bad. I much more prefer the former, but am not naive enough to underestimate the latter's firm standing as well. Change through this type of discussion is perhaps the best way to finally realize these hopes.

Have a good evening.

From your standpoint, as you've well said � but not from mine and Darren's.

My subject was the way that suppliers treat writers � sometimes without common courtesy � and how I'm responding to them.

Darren's subject is the tendency of certain Campfire members to abuse or to insult writers with out-right discourtesy often of the sleaziest kind.

I sought to give Campfire visitors a ray of light to illuminate one aspect of writer-supplier relations � speaking to present company about absent, unnamed companies. Darren sought, I think, to inspire Campfire visitors to think twice before insulting writers who expect only the common courtesy that anyone's entitled to expect � speaking to present company about presumably present offenders.

The only similarity that I see is the notion that if you want us to be nice to your products or to you and your favorite subjects, you'll find that a lot more of us will be a lot more willing to please you if you're not rude to us in either our presence or our absence.

Look closer, and you'll see that our aims are not even comparable, much less "one and the same."

Clearly, there is a problem, and doing something is in order. Some are not influenced even by the appeals from our �Gunwriters�, who I would think would have some influence.

Not too long ago, another poster, not a gunwriter to my knowledge, was raked over the coals, really bad, and no-one spoke against it but me, and someone else from the �Great Land�, and it went on, and on. The poster was quite able to defend himself, and he did, but most of us wouldn�t be able to.

My suggestion as a way to handle the "Killers and the Spoilers", is to ignore them. No response to their post, if it is offensive to YOU. And even let them know you�re ignoring them, if YOU feel it is warranted. Those who don't take offense can, and may, respond, but if they are truly out of line, hopefully enough people will recognize it, and let it die.

I'll admit that this doesn't always work well in practice, because, our nature is to defend ourselves, and our point, but we could try harder.

For example, and Heaven forbid that �I� would be offensive, if I was told that I was being put on ignore by another poster, I could apologize to him, or buzz off.

If this could become part of the rules, I�m sure it would go a long way towards solving the problem we have.
Smitty of the North