Show N Tell

Rovi

original_psycho wrote:

PM'ing straigh forward and about the same workload for both the poster and the mod.

Create a locked sticky, with instructions.

PM Sparks/Rew/CivDef/Rovi (Rovi for mod!!!!) your story about getting a license.

Said mod then copies / pastes into the thread after reviewing it.


Its almost the same as the queue system

Thinking about it for a bit, this could work quite well. If someone is going to the trouble of composing a PM to a Mod, they'll be much more likely to be careful about wording the content of their message than might otherwise be the case if it was being done 'on the fly' on an unlocked thread.
It would also keep the thread strictly on topic, and would eliminate silly and 'me too' type posts.

Oh, original_psycho, thanks for the vote of confidence (I think).

Rew

Here's the thing though. If we do that and if a mod accidently posts somthing thats very bad then their in the **** coz it looks like it came from them if you follow. The orignal poster has been made semi-anonymous by the process.

Then dont **** up!!

I had assumed that the user name of the user would be included, and the mod would have the original pm

Sparks

True, but that's where we are now anyway Rew, no matter what way we do this - open, per-post approval or PMs.

Sparks

original_psycho wrote:

I had assumed that the user name of the user would be included, and the mod would have the original pm

Wouldn't matter OP, you know Irish libel law would go after *us* as the publisher even if they know who the original poster was.

civdef

Or we could just let the whole idea for a specific thread drop, let people bring it up in other threads if the mood hits them.

civdef

civdef wrote:

Or we could just let the whole idea for a specific thread drop, let people bring it up in other threads if the mood hits them.

Where's the fun in that??? :cool:

Umiq88

The threads hardly going to be that benifical to someone applying and will probably turn out that noone reads it after a week or two.

The mods time would be much better spent doing a sticky with all the constant questions newbies keep coming up with as in a list of all the clubs around and how to apply for a licnece although not sure about the last one!

Sparks

How to apply for a firearms licence.



Working on the club list thing. Got me an idea...

vlmaxis

ginoguns39 wrote:

BIT CHEEKY BUT DARE WE LIST THE CRANKY SUPERS OUT THERE?,NOT THE NAMES BUT AREAS & COUNTIES.:eek:

It is threads like this that prove my point about this forum, this is the sort of s**t that will keep getting shooters a bad name, if I were the mod, i would close this now. I am sick and tired of people doing nothing constructive for the sport on these F*****G sites. BE CONSTRUCTIVE! not destructive, it should be called Bitching.ie. If we'r not slagging off dealers we'r slagging off the cjb, garda or each others clubs, get a life people and think of the future of our sport, you won't see this carry on in many other sporting forums, if you only joined this site you could be forgiven for thinking we all hated each other in the sport of shooting.:mad:

VL - you've actually stumbled on the reason why I wanted the 'Rate my District' thread to remain open.

It would give the people who actually had a positive experience a chance to air their views, and the censorship imposed would mean that any negative views quite tame with the (hopeful) net result being that people wishing to join the sport would see that in most districts the Guards were actaully grand, and it was just the isolated districts where there was trouble.

That, to me anyway, seems 'constructive' enough to warrant the effort.

Sparks

original_psycho wrote:

It would give the people who actually had a positive experience a chance to air their views, and the censorship imposed would mean that any negative views quite tame with the (hopeful) net result being that people wishing to join the sport would see that in most districts the Guards were actaully grand, and it was just the isolated districts where there was trouble.

Er, no. The "censorship imposed" (and frankly I dislike the phrase and it's implications) was to prevent people posting something in a contentious thread which could be used to sue boards.ie for libel. More correctly, the process is not censorship, it's libel proofing. And frankly, the bald, imdemnified-from-libel facts are far, far more damning in those 0.5% of the bad cases than any hyperbole could hope to be.

And yes, 0.5% of cases. And that's a liberal estimate, assuming that the cases taken to court make up one twentieth of all the problem cases. The fact is, 220,000+ licences are renewed every year without problems. The system, flawed as it is, does work, by and large. That's not to say it couldn't be improved, or that we should stop pushing for that, mind you.

VL, there are times when what you say is true, but there are other times when our hushing up and not rocking the boat is a bloody terrible idea. It has led in the past to the admin side of a lot of the sport being a complete mess with bitching, infighting, conflicts of interest, old boys clubs and a dozen other actual, real, sports problems. In cases like that, as my grandmother used to say, tell the truth, shame the devil...