Discuss What's Right And Wrong With Governing Rules And Laws

[Trav]

Eric, argue? No way...me, argue, nope...TF, argue, never...

Now that that is sorted out, all we have to say is we are playing on Phil's court, with Phil's ball (sorry, bad choice of words) and by Phil's rules. If we don't like it, we can leave.

Phew...

[ozark trout fisher]

I know I probably wouldn't post here any more (which may be a good thing according to some lol) if there wasn't a conservation issues portion-what good is a fishing forum where you can't talk about issues that could effect fishing, hunting, and the outdoors? It really is by far the most important sub-forum on here.

My personal opinion is that political issue that are directly relevent to fishing like the Conservation Bill thread before it got way off on the president and Bill O'Reilly and all that should be allowed. The question is whether we can talk about local political issues that directly affect fishing without bringing in the nasty rhetoric that surrounds national politics these days. So far it doesn't seem that we're capable (and I'm guilty as much as any), which negates a lot of the usefulness of this forum. If we cannot have semi-civil discussions about these types of issues then I wonder whether its even worthwhile at all to post here. There are other fishing forums that I post on where similar conservation issues are discussed without things getting nasty or overly political. On those forums the tone is just different,and a lot more relaxed, and you can have disagreements without things getting over the top. Personally, I will do my part to back off a little on the sharpness in some of my posts in the future-it's just not necessary at all.

[troutfiend1985]

Well maybe I'm wrong(won't be the last or first time) but conservation issues get close to the heart. After all, this is something we love, otherwise why post? And in saying that, this is a section to post your opinions, and with opinions come disagreements that can/will lead to arguments. I have no problem with arguing, as drew noted But I really don't want to get into national politics, which it appears that I'm not the only one. I don't mind someone calling me wrong, and if I've seen them on the forum before and they were arguing, then sure as heck I'm going to get back with them.

I think just staying off of national politics is what has been requested. Now, I'm sure if we really start getting into local politics(BTW IMO they're more important) then we'll end up not being able to talk about those if they don't show some relevance to outdoors.

Just my .02

[Danoinark]

Fellows its not the subject (Political)that's the problem its as Trav says "ends up being a dog pile." We don't all have to be on the same page of an issue to discuss it in a civil manner. Healthy discussion of a political nature especially in dealing with the subject of conservation can be helpful to us all. What breeds the Admin ire is the name calling and disrespect to the member posters.

Dano

[Phil Lilley]

Hi!

Looks like you've been having a nice discussion without me. Been watching basketball all day.

Dano's right. I really don't mind a conservation discussion crossing over to politics cause I know it's almost impossible to NOT talk about politics when talking about conservation. But as soon as someone throws in the conservative or liberal jabs, then the snowball starts rolling.

There's no way to draw a line, mark the boundaries. I don't want to even try. The "threat" I made the other day was out of frustration. Seems like I shoot a cannon ball over the bow every once in a while to try to scare the crew but it doesn't work. I should have learned.

I've only kicked one person off and that was for leveling some very personal stuff at someone - very criminal accusations - libelous - and he wouldn't stop. Not planning on kicking anyone off so don't worry about that. Should not have said it- sorry.

Don't know what the answer is... not sure if there is one.

I'll keep plugging away and talk about fishing 95% of the time and the other 5% and I think we'll all be some what friends in the end.

[Al Agnew]

Seems to me that one hard and fast rule should be to bar the use of the words "conservative" and "liberal" and all synonyms of them. Which really means, don't go down the ideological road.

Like others, I believe this the most important of all boards. There will be disagreement, but if we can just stop accusing others of nefarious purposes BEHIND their opposition to your viewpoint, it would go a long way toward civility. Make your arguments, and show respect for others and their viewpoints. Is that so hard?

There will always be some politics involved. Like in the thread on Cauthorn's bill to sunset the sales tax. Most of us believe he's totally wrong on this issue, but maybe he's a heck of a great representative for his district otherwise--I have no idea. You don't have to say he's an idiot, let alone an idiot because of his party affiliation. In fact, to steer clear of politics to some extent, you could talk about him by name without even naming his party. And his political leanings have little to do with the merits of the bill, so a simple mention of him as the sponsor is enough.

The other main rule should be to STAY ON TOPIC. Sly little digs at the President or national figures in either party, or even sly little digs at either party, are NOT on topic. While I try to stay civil and respectful, I gotta say that those are the types of things that really burn my toast, because not only are they off topic and irrelevant, but they are also calculated to tick other people off. If it was me, I'd also ban any overtly political statement in your signature line as well.

[Tim Smith]

Dano and Lilley, thank you, that's what I thought.

Is there a possibility the less civil posts can get cut out of the threads more often without getting the threads shut down.

Tim, Websters dictionary uses this as its secondary definition, and uses the words Politics to illustrate a secondary definition. If you note, the word politics is tied "party." The main definition is that of relating to government, while conservation is protecting and preservation. There's you lines, not hard to follow. And Tim, hate to be a jerk but, have one of those scientific tests you've conducted sorted out what is politics and what is conservation? No, not to my knowledge, thus this is a study of semantics and a gray issue. You're looking for something that doesn't exist. So far everyone else that I've seen on this post is saying that its a issue by issue basis, no hard line rules, thus the difference between science and real life. Laws/Rules/Constitutions are gray buddy. Just going to have to accept that.

Why is it important that this is Lilley's forum? Because it is Lilley who runs the ship, he makes the "laws" that govern this forum. The constitution doesn't apply here, no 1st Amendment because no govenrnment actor. He can kick you off, no big deal. Tim, you can always start up a forum, go through all that work and apply your own defintion and draw your own lines to what is and isn't politics. However, Lilley is under no obligation to put up a list of rules, or play Justice Scalia and draw lines about what is and isn't politics.

I'm done with this, not because I'm mad, but because there is nothing left to say. You have a point but it's moot. Oh well, get on with it and just don't expect people to not get heated about controversial subjects or for Lilley to write out a constitution of sorts for what is and is not politics.

TF. I do think it's best we leave off, you and I. You're going pretty far out on a limb here and arguing some points we never discussed and making broad and incorrect assertions and assumptions about my perspective. You're also making policy without input from Lilley or really reading what I've posted. So far the admins haven't backed up your "rules" and I think I'll leave your tangent where it lies.

[Tim Smith]

Seems to me that one hard and fast rule should be to bar the use of the words "conservative" and "liberal" and all synonyms of them. Which really means, don't go down the ideological road.

Like others, I believe this the most important of all boards. There will be disagreement, but if we can just stop accusing others of nefarious purposes BEHIND their opposition to your viewpoint, it would go a long way toward civility. Make your arguments, and show respect for others and their viewpoints. Is that so hard?

There will always be some politics involved. Like in the thread on Cauthorn's bill to sunset the sales tax. Most of us believe he's totally wrong on this issue, but maybe he's a heck of a great representative for his district otherwise--I have no idea. You don't have to say he's an idiot, let alone an idiot because of his party affiliation. In fact, to steer clear of politics to some extent, you could talk about him by name without even naming his party. And his political leanings have little to do with the merits of the bill, so a simple mention of him as the sponsor is enough.

The other main rule should be to STAY ON TOPIC. Sly little digs at the President or national figures in either party, or even sly little digs at either party, are NOT on topic. While I try to stay civil and respectful, I gotta say that those are the types of things that really burn my toast, because not only are they off topic and irrelevant, but they are also calculated to tick other people off. If it was me, I'd also ban any overtly political statement in your signature line as well.

I strongly agree with all of this except the limits for taking on people like Cathorn. I agree his party affiliation isn't important or worth mentioning, but his policy leanings should be open for any (reasonable, legal) comment.

I still do think too that the admins should feel more free to carve up individual posts on this forum when they stray out of line and wander into perjoratives and invective.

.....seems there's one well-established universally-admired poster on here who until recently had that role on another popular fishing forum (pointing to the guy with the paint brush, here). Maybe he would be willing to help out?

Al?

[drew03cmc]

Dano and Lilley, thank you, that's what I thought.

Is there a possibility the less civil posts can get cut out of the threads more often without getting the threads shut down.

TF. I do think it's best we leave off, you and I. You're going pretty far out on a limb here and arguing some points we never discussed and making broad and incorrect assertions and assumptions about my perspective. You're also making policy without input from Lilley or really reading what I've posted. So far the admins haven't backed up your "rules" and I think I'll let you take your tangent and leave it there.

Are you kidding me? You have been a member three months and already want to request that threads get trimmed down? Would you like to be the final word on which posts get axed? How about you personally go in and edit them?

The rules are to be gentlemanly, does it need to be spelled out?

[Tim Smith]

Are you kidding me? You have been a member three months and already want to request that threads get trimmed down? Would you like to be the final word on which posts get axed? How about you personally go in and edit them?

The rules are to be gentlemanly, does it need to be spelled out?

I'll find my own dictionary, thank you, Drew.

I didn't offer to edit anything and posts already get trimmed here sometimes, simmer down. That's common practice all across the internet.

If there's no one here the forum or administrators trust to do that equitably then I guess that won't fly and it's a bad idea and I retract it. I know Al was just itching to get at all your spotted bass posts (although, seriously, I'm sure he'd rather put his head through a wall than take on another adminstrator's job, but he did a great job at Riversmallies and one solution to frustrated administrators is to add more hands).