New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Forum Announcements & Support' started by -, Jul 27, 2010.
Swampy, my response about attitudes was not directed towards you, please take no offense, there are only a few that have posted more or helped someone more than you. :applause:
I have to agree with Swampy 100%..
Anybody remember that scene from "The Gods Must be Crazy" where the rhinoceros stomps out the people's campfire? The narrator says "Ah yes, the black rhinoceros, self-appointed fire marshall of the Serengeti."
Why does anybody care about what anybody else does here? Why do some folks feel they need to take it on themselves to "fix" it? This is Claude's forum. If you don't like something why not take it up privately with him?
I've said this before but I find it ironic that there are folks here who just HAVE to butt their noses into other people's doings. We are on a forum that celebrates the weapons and accutrements that were used to expand human liberty, and yet some of us can't refrain from trying to control what other people do while on an internet forum? :hmm:
Why not just leave it up to Claude?
:rotf: :rotf: are you not doing the same thing that you were just whinnin about
I don't think so. I'm old and slow, and just don't get your point.
Not sure what point was made.
I feel as if people point fingers at me as one of the bandwagon, though my comments have never offered support of the same critique that this thread is focusing on. Personally, I don't care one bit about the Not for Sale clause of the rules, and I don't think that rule was being violated very much if at all (BTW, while I don't care about that rule, it is posted, and should enforcement be necessary, it's the mods/admins responsibility to do so).
I mentioned the second rule of the Craftsman forum, which stated:
Show us something you made and share how you made it.
The share part was often being neglected entirely. It doesn't require a tutorial - it's a very simple rule with very loose interpretations, and therefore wouldn't require much to fulfil it's requirement. That's the only thing I think was being violated, and I don't think there was a need to pull the forum down to correct this.
I still think ultimately it's up to the owner of this site to determine it's path. Of course, if he upsets some people and they leave, the loss could be substantial, and I've seen a number of large forums crumble because the owners decided to take actions which ostracized their most contributive members. I've also seen just as many forums fall because the rules weren't enforced sufficiently to keep the few bad apples from spoiling them.
I don't support Carl's method of criticising the forum, but in fact pointed out that his post was in the wrong forum, as it didn't follow the rules, and asked for supporting documentation for his quote. I've been the recipient of his bad manners in the past, and certainly would never jump on any bandwagon pulled by his high horse. The heart of my feelings on the subject were stated in my first post in this thread:
This statement is the very same thing that was quoted by Claude just before he closed the forum. Perhaps this indicates I'm at fault for it closing, but not according to a PM I received from him (which I won't quote, as it was a PM, and quoting it would invalidate the nature of it being a PM). If any of you wish to direct your anger or disappointment in the temporary closing of the forum at me for this reason, then fine, but you may want to read what I wrote that he quoted and see if you agree with it, because I think it's in the best interest of all parties, which is why I wrote it. If you fundamentally disagree with what I wrote, then by all means, present your argument, but don't lump everyone who has an opinion and is willing to share it into the same category.
BTW, Here's the rules in full (in case you weren't able to click the link above):
Anyone who disagrees with these rules has 2 legitimate options - seek to have them changed, or refrain from posting.
I never had a problem with the rules, though I was permitted to bend them slightly when I volunteered to assist a member who is computer challenged in hosting and posting their images from a photobucket site I made and manage for them at no charge, simply to help out a fellow member and to allow other people to see their work. I never received anything for this from this other member who I still help post images for once in a while, though I myself was criticized by Carl Davis for going out of my way to be of help to someone.
The key here is I got permission from Claude (the maker of the rules) to do something slightly outside of them, because it was still in the spirit of the original intent of the forum. I don't think he's an unreasonable person, and I'm sure he's intent on getting the most sensible and enforcible rules going forward to ensure there's minimal room for people to debate whether something suits the particular forum. In order to do this, I have no doubt he's going to continue reading this thread with interest to see what everyone's opinion is, so he can do the best job he can. It's a hard spot to be in - with so many members on here, it's impossible to please them all, but considering what the site has become under the infrastructure he layed out, I think he can do it.
I'm sorry that was so long, and I'm not trying to step on toes. I think many of you have taken these events personally, and I'm not sure they were in any way directed at any of you. I'm feeling the withdrawl of the forum because I enjoy looking at your work, but I really think Claude has the best interest of the site in mind, and I know he wants to get the Craftsman forum back up ASAP.
Not sure when, but judging from the time stamp on the earliest post since this thread, the forum is back up as of ~ 10:00 am today. I'm not sure what changes, if any, Claude made to the rules (guideline post last edited in 2006), or plans to be more enforcing of. Hopefully he will tell us, so we're all clear on it.
"Announcements" is a good place to get updates. :wink:
So, according to the above guideline, any "vendor" who posts a photo of an item that is also "for sale" on their commercial web site is in violation. Is that not correct?
How much clearer does it have to be?
I'll bet that if someone posted porn or discussed religion it would get reported in a heartbeat. I think people are being selective in which rules they want enforced. IMHO
To a degree, isn't the proper use of the forum everyone's responsibility? Isn't that why there's a report button?
I am a hobbyist blacksmith and knife maker, who came to this forum because I became interested in muzzle loading. I also joined other M/L forums. Through this forum and others, I obtained the needed information to set forth on my new hobby.
The only knowledge I have to contribute to others is in the form of blacksmithing and knife making. I am not a pro by any stretch of the definition. I don't have a web site. I have not and will not offer any of my work for sale on this forum. I have, however, been lucky enough to sell some of my work. Therefor I guess, technically I am a vendor. Under this definition, so are many others who post here.
I will refrain from posting any more pics of my work on this forum, so that my motives for being a member here are not in question.
Nope, you are missing my point. (And believe me, I knew somebody would)
This thread is about the issue I addressed. My post is related to the subject of this thread. It is when a thread is jumped off its rails by somebody bringing up something unrelated, (such as the possible hidden motivations of the original poster, or a breaking of the rules of the forum), that I think they step over the line. Don't you see a distinction there? Maybe it's not that clear a difference to most folks but it seems to be a big difference to me.
Now, we can agree to disagree where the line is exactly, or what the rules should be, or how strictly they should be enforced, but can't we all at least agree that all of that is up to Claude, and the best thing to do is respect his judgement on these issues. In other words, since the exact location of the line, enforcement of the rules, etc. isn't up to you, or me, or Carl, or Santa Claus, we should have the class to let Claude deal with it in any way he feels is appropriate. And if we don't like his decision we are all free to go elsewhere.
Which means, if you have a problem with a thread being a sales pitch. Alert Claude and let him dicide how to handle it. Then leave it alone. I don't know, maybe it isn't that simple but it sure feels that simple to me.
I for one am awaiting Claude's new guidelines so we can all discuss the subject at hand in any given thread and not have to worry about Mrs. Cravits jumping in and pointing out how out of line we all are.
Mike, Maybe you should wait and see what the new guidlines are. I've seen your stuff and it is definitely helpful to all of us to have such fine work posted. :thumbsup:
I think that is what has a lot of peoples fur stroked in the wrong direction, it is up to Claude! No one else! Claude is a grown man, he does not need Carl trying to run his site! Claude has done a great job with this forum, and he(and his chosen moderators) are the ones that should enforce the rules, Not Mr.Davis!
Proper use of the forum is not policing of the forum, which is why people are upset with how you typically go about making your point.
The reason for the report button is so you can notify the people responsible for policing without taking the thread in question off topic by imposing a sense of internet vigilantism.
Old Knife, I for one would like it very much if you would continue to post. Please don't stop. :thumbsup:
Paul, :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Carl, you remind me of a third grade hall monitor. Thankyou for muddying up the drinking water :cursing:
Thank you Paul..
:applause: :applause: :applause:
People can break the rules by showcasing products that are for sale on their commercial web site and then when someone complains about it, they post personal attacks and arm-chair psychoanalysis.
At least my posts addressed the subject matter, not the person. I guess personal attacks are no longer against the rules either?
Separate names with a comma.