Suggestion for a new *type* of legal/political forum on TFL

[Jim March]

I actually started it in General: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/fo...threadid=40620

Sorry...but I'd appreciate y'all taking a look.

Jim

[Rich Lucibella]

Jim-
I should have responded to that. I'm sorry....it's been a run like I haven't seen since Grad School final exams. DC emailed me and is interested in pursuing this...she already posted over there. You're in far better hands than with me.

Good to see you again! Haven't crossed paths with you in some time.
Rich

[Jim March]

Hi Rich,

By now DC should have EMailed you a proposed draft FAQ and charter for the new critter. If it's not clear in there, I'm not proposing any read or post restrictions based on loginname. Lurking will be just as easy as any other forum. The difference is purely in "editorial tone" from the moderator's POV.

Lemme know what you think.

Jim March
[email protected]

PS: the case is going GOOD. Err...the second one, that is , I'm in Fed court now with a lawyer, a $5k grant and two co-plaintiffs so far.

[Rich Lucibella]

Jim-
I saw it, but it's hard to respond to in HTML format. Is there any way you can send this to me in MS Word?
Rich

[Jim March]

Sure, I'll do it right now but...you do know that Word can open an HTML file and edit it just fine, right?



Save the file to disk from EMail, go into Word, give a "file, OPEN" command. By default it will only want to list Word documents but change the "type" from Word Document to either "HTML" or "All" and you'll see the file in the Open window. Double-click on it and it's just like working with a Word doc...you can do a "file, SAVE AS" command to turn it into a Word doc.

Jim

[Hal]

*sigh*

This is really a matter to present to the members since it will effect all.

I *vote* nay.

I can easily foresee nothing but a division of members as a caste system of posting is put in place. Who here is not going to want to be a "professional", or worthy to post there.


bad idea for http://www.thefiringline.com

great idea for RKBA , if you read my drift James, Jesse.

[Edited by Hal on 11-21-2000 at 07:26 AM]

[Jim March]

We're not proposing limiting posting rights, only a difference in "moderator tone". And it will ONLY be this one sub-forum affected.

We get three advantages this way:

1) "Bandwidth streamlining" - by actively organizing broadcasts from state and national level orgs and sources, you get "one stop shopping" for updates yet the total byte amounts don't go crazy from duplicates. If you've ever tried to track talk.politics.guns for even a few days, you'd understand how wild things can get, especially during the peak of the legislative season or around elections.

2) We attract "big names" (lawyers, nationally known activists) by eliminating the "flamepit effect". As one example, one of the first people I'd invite would be Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. Now, if somebody like that posted in a normal Internet forum, they could almost count on posts to the effect of "you suck!" because they're politicians (TX state legislature, in her case). But on this forum, that sort of stupidity simply won't be tolerated so we have a chance of actually getting her. Ditto for John Lott, David Kopel, Gary Kleck, Stephen Halbrook, etc. Can I promise any of those would actually do more than lurk? Hell no, but I can guarantee you won't see them on your average general-access, limited-moderation board and they *will* be invited to the proposed new critter. So will Larry Pratt, Aaron Zelman, several NRA BoD members...get the idea?

If regular attendance due to time limits isn't possible, I'll try and get big players to "pop in for a couple of scheduled days" for some limited question-answering, etc. How would you like to see a post that says "major figure X will answer the first 10 polite questions posed on this thread in two days"?

That will be at least possible.

3) Say a thread comes up on a critical problem or activity. It'll be safe to spread the URL out beyond the normal TFL reader base and all the way to the White House if necessary because if some fool drops trousers and takes a dump in the thread once you distribute it, moderators aren't going to stand around worrying about "free speech issues", rather they're going to ask "is this a good thing for the cause" and when it fails that test, the offending "virtual graffiti" is *toast*.

This is necessary to the cause. We had a case come up on Bladeforums where a knife vendor had a problem with US Customs. Doesn't sound important? If the "switchblade standard" used in the bust was applied nationally, every single retail gun dealer could have faced felonies. So I passed the URL for the discussion up to some high-level NRA contacts, people who at least in theory could get the attention of US Senators. And THEN some fool starts slandering the company in that same thread. It needed sterilization, and FAST, and I couldn't convince the BF admins and moderators of the main forum of the need. They were too hung up on the standard Internet "free speech culture" to think about the damage being done to the cause of freedom.

We need a place where that level of political action is safe because if the thread gets puked on, it'll be cleaned ASAP.

Jim

[Hal]

First and foremost is my apology to all for using the handle Hal. It was I assure you an unintentional slip on my part, that won't happen again. I blame it on myself, and the "cookie monster" of multiple browsers. I intended to use RAE. Since what's done is done though, I continue to use Hal for the duration of this thread.

It needed sterilization, and FAST, and I couldn't convince the BF admins and moderators of the main forum of the need. They were too hung up on the standard nternet "free speech culture" to think about the damage being done to the cause of freedom. We need a place where that level of political action is safe because if the thread gets puked on, it'll be cleaned ASAP.

Jim,
If you can't see what's wrong with THAT, nothing I or anyone else can say will help.

Had you taken the few seconds to search "who is", you would have noted the registrant for http://www.thefiringline.org as James, Jesse. Also, if you were a more frequent visitor here at TFL, you would have noted the divisions, hard feelings, and loss of members that take place over even the simplest of changes.

My proposal is to seperate .com and .org for the forum you suggest. The pieces are already mostly there, the registered name, a "fat pipe", the software, UBB, bought, paid for and with the added plus that Rich and Co. have a working knowledge of the ins/outs of UBB. This would leave TFL intact, and still achieve what you propose, and then some. A seperate.org site, would boil down to just needing hardware. If, at that point, it becomes a matter of money, there are alternatives to handle that. Mnay of the splintered sites that exist now could be incorporated into the umbrella of one such site, while still remaining autonomous to TFL.com.
Since traffic to that site would be exclusive of regular TFL traffic, daily funcion ie: life as we know it, would not be affected. A simple link, on the opening page of either site, could link one to the other. The .org has the added benifit of being removed from the taint of .com(commercial).
In case you haven't noticed, BF is a 100% commercial site, and deserves it's .com extension. I ponted this out to DC some 5 weeks before BF was up and running BTW.

This may ruffle your personal feathers a bit: With your involvement in your court case, I feel you would make a poor choice to moderate such a forum. Too many people would view it as your attempt to further a personal agenda, rather than the RKBA issue. Sorry, but that's exactly how it's playing out over at BF and other places around the net. Lots of folks are viewing you as just a pissy moderator in a "power struggle" with the owner. Yes, I've been reading the threads at BF, as well as comments at other forums. Mike Turber is not a "favorite son" of the internet, so any time he can be a target of something, he usually jumps on it with both feet. Kind of a Lynn Thompson, but not as quick with a law suit.

FWIW, my own suggestions for moderators would include Spartacus, Stephen A. Camp, Long Path w/Rob and DC as admins. (Sorry about that Dona, but you are "the best".)

Also, the part about the "trolls". Since the vast majority of anti RKBA folks are from a background which require advance degrees, do you think they are going to burst in here, or anywhere else, and be so obvious?

[Edited by Hal on 11-22-2000 at 07:07 AM]

[Rich Lucibella]

RAE-
We don't have the ability to "vote" on TFL as we don't have punchcards. However, naturally we try to take Member input into account in considering new changes. As you've noted, we can never please all the people, so, in the end, someone has to make the decision.

That said, Staff is very much in favor of Jim's concept and his involvement. A detailed plan has been forwarded to me and I just need to break free a block of time to respond to it in an intelligent manner (sorry for the delay, Jim). TFL has always been pleased to support actions which unite firearms owners. This is an outstanding opportunity to do just that.

Continued input and disagreement is welcome.
Rich

[Jim March]

Hal, as I said in one of the later posts on that BF Politics thread discussing some of these issues, I've come to agree that what I wanted to have happen in the CRKT affair wasn't really possibly under the current BF charter. For that matter, it isn't possible under the normal TFL "rules of engagement". And as you've guessed by now, this proposal to Rich for a special sub-forum here is the alternative that I hope renders the BF controversy a moot point.

I'm not sure I see how setting up a single sub-forum with it's own operating charter on TFL is any different than setting up an entire separate board. Nor do I see how a different charter for a single TFL sub-board hurts the rest of the board. If I'm wrong, please explain?

By operating as a sub-forum on TFL, we take advantage of Rich's current software and hardware, and allow TFL members to participate without having to create new user profiles on another board and URL.

I grant you that the change in "tone" one this one sub-forum should NOT creep out into the rest of TFL. I don't want that to happen, I very much doubt Rich or the other moderators do either.

As to my involvement: my actions in Contra Costa County have been endorsed by elements of the NRA, JPFO, KABA and many others that normally don't have much to do with each other. *Nobody* involved in RKBA has ever told me that what I'm doing is hurting anything, although there's been a few pessimistic voices. I haven't been very controverial, with the exception of this belief that some sort of "increased moderation" is needed for special purposes and projects. And I think if you asked him, even Mike Turber will say that the best way to end this controversy is to go set up a forum like that away from BF.

(Hmmmm...come to think, *one* person said I could do harm, but he's a wealthy permitholder in Santa Clara county where scoring a permit is like pulling teeth from a 'gator. So he's biased . He is NRA connected, but he's the only NRA-faction voice who's had a problem. Local member's councils have asked me to give updates in person .)

I won't apologize for giving a damn about RKBA. If being too outspoken means I'm a poor choice for moderator, and especially if Rich or the other moderators agree, fine. Doesn't matter. As long as such a forum exists, I'd do my best to attract "major players" to it and propose it to people involved in urgent action (the way CRKT was) as a safe place to conduct business without the threads being pooped on. And when it's time to do updates from court for anyone interested, I'll use that forum.

If I was in this for my own ego, I'd be running my own EGroups mailing list with updates and discussions, but instead I've been telling people to subscribe to Jeff Chan's CA-Firearms list because it's been around for years and has an extensive member base already. This isn't about "me wanting to moderate another group", this is about a tool I think we need and I'm not stuck on the idea of running it.

LOL - I just remembered something, you can ask Mike Turber for confirmation: I created the idea of a "community forum" for Mike Turber back on Knifeforums! Mike had been rotated out of the KF "General discussion" moderator slot and there was a bit of bad feeling going on...I felt that the general forum should be split between "basic fun and off-topic" (Community) and actual knife content (Main) to reduce the enormous size of the main forum...Mike started BF not long after that and offered me Community for coming up with the idea. And then when multi-moderators were made possible in UBB, I was the one that first offered VG the co-moderator slot.

So if your point is that this is "all about my ego", well, I'd have to disagree. Mind you, I may be reading you wrong and that may not be your intent, no offense intended either way.

Jim

[Hal]

Jim,
LOL! Yeah, I forgot about the KF "Mikey the Missing Moderator" thing. Using the present presidential election as an example, Gore is too close to the issue, and is causing a lot of his support to drop with every appearance he makes. Bush is using his "staff" to make his points, and gaining support all the while. You might just be a little too close to the issue to maintain an objective image,(appearance mind you, not attitude) in the role of moderator. Your ethics in my book are above question. My suggestions above are based on :age, availability as far as time constraints, content of their posts, etc. as wll as the normal moderator type requirements. Your proposal is going to require a lot of time, both on and off the board. If it weren't for the present situation in Austraila, one of the Aussies or someone else in that time zone would make sense also. (Trolls, like rust, never sleep.)


As far as seperating the sites. I've been party to an FBI investigation where equipment was seized as evidence. In they came, and out the went. Box and all. The box came back 2 years later. No boogy man image here, just a precaution that one (site) won't spill over to the other. When Earl left the front door open at KF one night, there was a lot of interesting stuff to see inside, see mind you, not tamper with, but see. Your proposal to draw some big names, is also going to draw some unwanted attention from the other side. Quite frankly, the security of this site is weak. Anyone dedicated enough could get in with no problem. So far, all there is here is just a bunch of folks talking guns and politics. <--Not worth the effort for them to do anything else. Now, change that by putting in a high profile politician, and the stakes go outta sight.


Rich and Jim,
The rest taken to e-mail.


[Edited by Hal on 11-23-2000 at 09:58 AM]

[Jim March]

I couldn't agree more with the time requirements. I said right from the get-go that we'll need *4* moderators (minimum!), and I meant it.

As to the usual Internet security issues, Rich would be in a better position to respond, I know very little of UBB and even less of this critter. But I have to admit it's a good point - if this works, the stakes do indeed go up.

As to an FBI raid, I don't think it'll happen. BS of that type would really put a spotlight on the situation...the rest of the of usual Internet pro-gunnie sites would go ape. If we're reduced to worrying about freedom of speech being chilled, well hell, it's worth finding out because at that point, we're beyond "normal measures" for reform.

Jim

[Jim March]

Rich, how about this standard:

If a post endorses a particular pro-rights candidate, or proposes a positive course of action of some sort, it's on-topic. If it's something like "here's news on the latest voter fraud, ain't it a pisser!?" like we've seen a flood of lately, well, there's plenty of other places for that and it gets dumped in the general legal/political? But as a contrasting example, a post describing a GOA-led EMail/phone/fax/mail campaign to the FL Supremes last week would be a "positive call for action" and fully on-topic?

This isn't about "censorship" so much as it is "bandwidth control". If we get regular updates from every state RKBA org during the peak legicritter sessions, we're going to have to worry about that, bigtime .

Jim

[Hal]

Jim,
RE the FBI: The incident I spoke of above actually had the FBI acting in the role of *good guy*. Someone tried to gain access to a rather well known private network via one of their servers, in this case a mega $$ Sun box. The Sun box and everything on it, was seized as evidence in an unannounced visit. What they did with it for 2 years is anybody's guess. (We're from the Govt, and we're here to help!).Since the actual entry point was limited to the Sun box, that's the only server they were allowed access. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past them(them being anyone with bad intentions) to fabricate evidence, but the stakes would have to be pretty high to do so. Even now,I guess if the stakes were high enough, someone could post something, ahem, not Kosher, in the for sale area or some such nonsense, that could close down a site and not raise too many eyebrows. You make reference to the gunnie sites going ape, and while that's true, the ape would likely be short lived. Compuserve shut down, albeit not by any "known government involvement"-(but these days, who really knows?), and a few months later, it's just so much nostalgia.

As far as site security in general goes, the people that know how to get in, are pretty much going to, when it comes to the brute force method. In my professional opinion, the only half way secure site is one that is non functional, disassebled and the pieces of it scattered on the surface of the moons of Jupiter.

I dunno, maybe my strongest obection here is messing with success. In the IT field, and being a techie yourself, you know where I'm coming, there's just too much change for the sake of new and different. Some good, but most either useless or bad. ( I would dearly love to have an unbroken box of Microsoft Bob. That sucker is going to be worth mega $$ some day in the next century) While I'm pretty much a cranky old fart of a reactionary, I'm really pretty much like the average Joe when it comes to getting comfortable with something, and TFL is one of the more comfortable sites going. Hmm, maybe just a bit too comfortable huh? Now comfort is a great thing I suppose, but I guess it's easy for it to turn into complacent.

[Jim March]

Sure, Hal, I like TFL too, been posting here off and on for years.

But looks at what's missing: not a single lawyer who's willing to admit being such, not a single NRA BoD (not good, considering there's what, 70 of 'em?), no Aaron Zelman, no pro-gun legislators...nada, zip, zilch.

Can I *promise* to change that? No, although I'm close to 100% certain I can fix the lack of lawyers problem...I personally know seven pro-gun lawyers . As to the rest, well hell, we can try, I've got some contacts there too...and I guarantee you won't see 'em under the current operating charter.

And that's just one aspect of what's needed.

As to the for-sale areas, I hope somebody's watching for obvious illegality, esp. involving Class3 and other NFA stuff.

Jim

[Hal]

Jim,
It's pretty obvious that your court case has given you considerable "Hell, I was there" type of training. Outstanding Sir, I salute you. I'm not being facecious or belittleing you in any manner, this is honest praise. All too often the school of hard knocks is the best teacher. FWIW, I'd give you a B+.( It' would be an A, but, pisser? Also, about the ego thing. Well! Hey, at BF, I nominated you for member of the year remember? Only to get the no, cause you were a moderator. I said screw it and wrote ya in anyhow. I'd hate to see the same thing happen here

So far here are my points:

Security. Still a major concern, but if it's likely to happen, then deal with it as it happens, after taking any reasonable measures.

Board(member reaction). Bound to be some, also bound to be some negative. I looked back at the older posts in the General Forum, and tried to put an approx. time frame on when certain changes in the board took place, vs/ Member reaction. Most reactions. positive and negative peter out after 3 weeks or so, with something else diverting attention away. I don't want to reopen any wounds here, so I'm not going to list the incidents. In a number of cases, whole groups of individuals left. In some of those cases, it was addition by subtraction, but still a drain on the overall knowledge base. Member turnover is a given, as people come and go, for whatever reason.

Spill over- Um, no way to prevent it, but to keep an eye on it. This may be the worst of the bunch though since it would mean more moderation of all the forums. My main gripe about more moderation isn't about the cencorship angle. Never has been, never will be. My main complaint about more moderation is that it takes valuable posting time away from a lot of the better people(posters). Looking back at a lot of the forums, the staff contributed an enormous amount, to an enormous variety of topics, goes down in direct proportion to the amount of time spent ministering to the functions/content of the board.Sad fact of life I guess, is that as a board becomes more successful, it needs more attention.

KISS- I'm leary of anything that could violate KISS. The above mentioned newcomer has an interesting (to say the least) profile. Under the format of a month ago, he would have had a much better chance of becoming a great member of TFL. As luck/chance would have it though, he just happened to hit the boards at the wrong time. If you look at his profile, and check out his homepage, you can see this is exactly the type of individual you seek to attract. He had the misfortune (actully the loss is more ours than his). of hitting the forums during 1.) A software transition. 2.) A peak time of staff intervention. 3.) A change in format.(I took the liberty of extending an invitation to give TFL annother chance, via a partial explanation as to the events surrounding what happened. (Sorry Rich, if I overstepped my bounds. You can flog me later .) This is pretty much an example of overlooking what's in place already, while trying to fine tune something.

At this point, I have little left to add, other than to tread lightly when fixing something that ain't broke is concerned. OTOH, if, as Rich says, I feel THAT strongly about it, there's always http://www.what-ever-you-want-to-call-it.com to take my objections to. I just feel that I would be remiss in my duty as a long term member of TFL to not speak my piece about changes here.

If however, these changes are put in place, I for one will say no more on the subject.