Not Animally - The Off Topic Thread

Galway K9

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

The last post on the thread is by you, you posted several times on the thread that you wern't comming back to it, but kept doing so.

Yes thats true as i wanted to let it go but i couldnt as was getting to me. Im human!

Whispered

Galway K9 wrote: »

And finally to whispered, the cough remarks were implying that i made assumptions that you were a Jan Fennell supporter and an Irish Dogs poster. Im very open to correction on that.

Totally wrong..... however funnily enough I was in the secondhand bookshop today and I pulled out a book I was interested in, and out fell a Jan Fennell book along with it. So owing to your comment, I bought it to see what you were on about. Once it's read I will let you know if I'm insulted or not.

Galway K9

Discodog wrote: »

Your comments regarding EGAR were totally out of order.

"well Egar your dogs are having a ball at my club after your agility episode!

none are on prong or MUZZLE and all very happy|!
however i comp go against your personailty and methods but do go along with your love for dogs.

Pit bulls are welcome at my class"

You don't know EGAR yet you make such a remark. She has never been to your "club". She doesn't know you. Your remarks are totally out of order & I was astonished that you made them.

I doubt if she reported you & I certainly didn't as both of us are more than capable of fighting our corner.

Btw one of the annoying aspects of locking the thread is that we can't easily quote here.

Disco youve got that comment all wrong, EGAR attended a class and reported a controversy on facebook and i was saying their in my class having a great time that their not in muzzles after the episode in another agility class.

EGAR can you pls clarify this. Thanks.

Galway K9

Whispered wrote: »

Totally wrong..... however funnily enough I was in the secondhand bookshop today and I pulled out a book I was interested in, and out fell a Jan Fennell book along with it. So owing to your comment, I bought it to see what you were on about. Once it's read I will let you know if I'm insulted or not.

This is not an insult OKAY....you will love her!:D

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Your comments regarding EGAR were totally out of order.

And I think your comment demanding an apology is/was out of order.K9 is doing his best to explain the situation here and Im still of the view despite previous comments from some users that he was out to get the thread closed hes not.
If you and Egar are

more than capable of fighting our corner.

then maybe Sarah will clarify the comment for K9 as he requested in a previous post and we can move on from this.

Btw one of the annoying aspects of locking the thread is that we can't easily quote here.

You can quote--copy and paste and add the users name at the start of the quote.Acceptable as long as its kept in its entirety and not have bits removed.

Discodog

K9 said:

"however i comp go against your personailty and methods but do go along with your love for dogs."

And EGAR replied:

"I do not know you, I do not participate in any classes your club offers, so I still do not understand your earlier posts my replies to which you keep ignoring. But then again "

I don't see much ambiguity. K9 says that he doesn't like her personality & methods & EGAR says that she doesn't know him.

K9's excuse appears to be:

"Very unwise as i have never go tinvolved in a debate on boards before bar thsi one and onyl reason i got involved initially was because i was intoxicated."

In my book if a drunk insults a lady he apologises

Galway K9

Discodog wrote: »

K9 said:

"however i comp go against your personailty and methods but do go along with your love for dogs."

And EGAR replied:

"I do not know you, I do not participate in any classes your club offers, so I still do not understand your earlier posts my replies to which you keep ignoring. But then again "

I don't see much ambiguity. K9 says that he doesn't like her personality & methods & EGAR says that she doesn't know him.

K9's excuse appears to be:

"Very unwise as i have never go tinvolved in a debate on boards before bar thsi one and onyl reason i got involved initially was because i was intoxicated."

In my book if a drunk insults a lady he apologises

Disco you cut the part where EGAR vaguley knows me from an agility comp in galway. And i stated that dogs are in my class coming from another...she misinterpretated my post. she has never been in my class i agree.

And disagreeing with her methods and personality is a right and is not an insult.

On same note....intoxicated doesnt make you wrong..:D.....it makes you drunk. ha

Whispered

EDIT: Actually - goodnight

Galway K9

Whispered wrote: »

Telling someone on a thread that you dislike them personally is not a right. It's a personal attack on a poster.

I said i dislike her personality not her as a person....there is a big difference from what i believe in. And only reason i say that is because i didnt know it was a rescue stand and asked innocently and persumably "Is the dog for sale"...and i was abruptly attacked for a simple innocent question that had no evil or bad intentions in it. (I can understand her defensiveness considerign her beliefs and hobbies but it was out of line and rude and could have been dealt with better)

Night heading bed..:)

Whispered

Galway K9 wrote: »

I said i dislike her personality not her as a person....there is a big difference from what i believe in. And only reason i say that is because i didnt know it was a rescue stand and asked innocently and persumably "Is the dog for sale"...and i was abruptly attacked for a simple innocent question that had no evil or bad intentions in it. (I can understand her defensiveness considerign her beliefs and hobbies but it was out of line and rude and could have been dealt with better)

Night heading bed..:)

ah you get there before my edit.

Personally I think your comment was also out of line and rude and had nothing to do with the thread in question. However I wouldn't say I dislike your personality. I wouldn't assume to know you well enough from one or two conversations. (either online or in person).

anyway, nothing to do with me really, just thought I'd butt in.:cool:

Cherry Blossom

Galway K9 wrote: »

Disco youve got that comment all wrong, EGAR attended a class and reported a controversy on facebook and i was saying their in my class having a great time that their not in muzzles after the episode in another agility class.

EGAR can you pls clarify this. Thanks.

Galway K9 wrote: »

Disco you cut the part where EGAR vaguley knows me from an agility comp in galway. And i stated that dogs are in my class coming from another...she misinterpretated my post. she has never been in my class i agree.

And disagreeing with her methods and personality is a right and is not an insult.

On same note....intoxicated doesnt make you wrong..:D.....it makes you drunk. ha

Can you please clarify:

Who is or isn't in your class, and are they or aren't they?. What does any of this have to do with Cesar Milan?

This seems to be where the confusion is, your posts are very inconsistant.

Also everyone else has to abide by the rule that this is the place to discuss issues and grievances like this, not random unrelated threads where the OP has no idea what you are talking about.

Galway K9 wrote: »

*** watches for the regulars lurking ***
Id train them sepeartley to build a 1-1 bond, once you can work work with 1 at a time, 4 of them will naturally listen to the leader that they know. Also dont worry bout indoor/outdoor...its what she wants and cares that matters.


Tell her best of luck and she wll love it!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056217821

Galway K9

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Can you please clarify:

Who is or isn't in your class, and are they or aren't they?. What does any of this have to do with Cesar Milan?

This seems to be where the confusion is, your posts are very inconsistant.

Also everyone else has to abide by the rule that this is the place to discuss issues and grievances like this, not random unrelated threads where the OP has no idea what you are talking about.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056217821

I dont have grievances and got off topic.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

Am I going blind (don't ask why ) but has the TV3 thread disappeared ?

Posted in chillout by mistake

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

And I think your comment demanding an apology is/was out of order.K9 is doing his best to explain the situation here and Im still of the view despite previous comments from some users that he was out to get the thread closed hes not.

I didn't demand an apology I said:

"She deserves an apology."

Is that really back seat modding ?

Had K9 taken that advice, which was meant as a genuine suggestion to a poster that I used to respect, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Hellrazer

The TV3 thread was removed pending admin review.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Discodog youre reading into this statement wrong.Scartmans comment was directed at the whole anti hunt community and not you as an individual.

Now I suggest you drop it and stop mentioning libel and or slander.

Consider this a warning.

Yet again we have a pro hunting bias.

scartman1 wrote: »

Its a well known fact that the Animal Rights movement staged a proganda video, where they surreptiously strangled a Hare, to give the impression of a dying hare being discovered in the Hare enclosure of the National Meeting in Clonmel.

Not a fact, totally unproven, no evidence but allowed to be posted as fact when it is defamatory.

scartman1 wrote: »

Glass has been thrown on coursing fields and property damaged and hares released by the Animal Rights movement in the past, and they continue to show scant regard for the law or the truth.

Another example of a totally unsubstantiated claim.

Normally these types of post would not be allowed on Boards for fear of litigation. I guess that Boards do not consider that Animal Welfare groups can afford legal action.

I get warned whilst these posts are accepted. So I will assume that it is now perfectly acceptable to make any unsubstantiated claim.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Yet again we have a pro hunting bias.

And once again youre questioing not only a mods decision but the admins one aswell--this time unfortunately it wasnt my decision or the a+p mods on reopening that thread.

Not a fact, totally unproven, no evidence but allowed to be posted as fact when it is defamatory.

I suggest you read the post again.Its quite clear that it was aimed at a group and not you.

your websites

So unless you run multiple sites its not aimed at you.

Normally these types of post would not be allowed on Boards for fear of litigation.

Discodog Ive asked you to drop this and believe me you really are skating on thin ice here.

I get warned whilst these posts are accepted. So I will assume that it is now perfectly acceptable to make any unsubstantiated claim.

You got warned because of your threat of "other action" over the post.
Now drop it.

FreudianSlippers

Discodog wrote: »

Normally these types of post would not be allowed on Boards for fear of litigation. I guess that Boards do not consider that Animal Welfare groups can afford legal action.

Unfortunately for those who are generally anti-hunt, such as myself, you are not really helping our side with this type of behaviour.

Firstly, you clearly have a very basic and fundamentally incorrect notion and understanding of the law and litigation. Particularly, libel - a tort which no longer exists in this jurisdiction - you seem to have genuinely no idea what it is or how it operates in function.
So, for your own good and everyone's good I'll define defamation for you since I believe it's what you're trying to get at when you're discussing libellous comments.

What is defamation?
The publication, by any means, of an untrue statement concerning a person (including companies) to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), which would damage the reputation of that person/organisation in the eyes of others.
An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

1. It must be published
2. It must refer to the complainant and
3. It must be false

It is for YOU to prove these elements. There is no onus on the person making the statement to prove that they are true.

There are 2 defences which I think are important here which will mean the statement is not defamatory:

• Honest Opinion: It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as the “defence of honest opinion”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.
• Qualified Privilege: it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought would [...] have been considered under the law [...] as having been made on an occasion of qualified privilege. That is, that the statement was published to a person or persons who had a legal, moral or social duty and/or interest in receiving, the information contained in the statement, or
  the defendant believed upon reasonable grounds that the said person or persons had such a duty or interest, and the defendant had a corresponding duty to communicate, or interest in communicating, the information to such person or persons..

Secondly, you've been warned by Hellrazer on multiple occasions, I'm not a moderator in this forum so I'm just a regular user posting this, but I'd quit now because this shít isn't going to fly anymore. It's not a pro-hunt or anti-hunt mentality... as I already said, I'm anti-hunt; but if I was a mod here I'd have done the same.

Discodog

Thank you that was most informative. However in minimising the likely outcome of defamation it seems to go against the forum charter & the various warnings that resulted in part of A&P being pre-moderated which was specifically to prevent defamatory remarks.

I fully accept that I should not of mention libel. If the two posts by Scartman (posted above) are acceptable then at least we know what is acceptable to post. I had thought it to be a general principle here that one doesn't state something as a fact without some proof.

Just to clarify that I have only ever received one minor infraction from Boards in some 2000 posts - hardly a troublemaker. I also did not question Hellrazer's moderation - I was seeking clarification on Scartmans's posts but got a warning instead. I did not seek the locking of the thread.

I also trust that you understand that this thread is, in effect, a continuation of the feedback thread where we are permitted to discuss such matters without fear of retribution.

If libel no longer exists it seems a little unfair to be warned for mentioning it .

Hellrazer

Discodog--please drop this.Ive already asked you and yet you keep responding.Can we just leave it now?

FreudianSlippers

Discodog wrote: »

Thank you that was most informative. However in minimising the likely outcome of defamation it seems to go against the forum charter & the various warnings that resulted in part of A&P being pre-moderated which was specifically to prevent defamatory remarks.

This forum, as with all other fora on boards.ie, is not actually pre-moderated.
We, as mods, do our best to deal with complaints and reported posts which cover a broad spectrum of complaints - defamation is but one of these.

We then need to take a position on whether or not the post is defamatory. More often than not, we tend to err on the side of caution (if you ask me, it's overcautious) and remove the post.

We cannot, however, tolerate all posters threatening legal action every time they disagree with a post.

My point in posting the above is simply to let you know that we have to balance what is possibly defamatory with what is "free speech". I hope you understand that you are fully capable of speaking your mind once it doesn't breach the charter. I understand that you feel strongly about the issue and feel that it is defamatory to suggest that the Animal Rights movement is employing certain tactics. My point is that this statement may either be that poster's honest opinion, or alternatively, he may have arguable qualified privilege to state that to other people (both pro and anti hunt, as anti-hunt people may disagree with these tactics if they are true).

I fully accept that I should not of mention libel. If the two posts by Scartman (posted above) are acceptable then at least we know what is acceptable to post. I had thought it to be a general principle here that one doesn't state something as a fact without some proof.

In essence, it's fine if you want to counter his point and ask for proof that this is an accurate statement - but threatening legal action (or IMO bandying about the term defamation) is crossing the line and that's what Hellrazer was trying to bring to your attention. It's a thing that I believe one can be sitebanned for.

It would be different, IMO, if posters were stating that you or specific groups were engaged in illegal activity, but if that is the case - use the report button and rest assured that questions of defamation are taken very seriously on boards.ie and it will be looked into.

Just to clarify that I have only ever received one minor infraction from Boards in some 2000 posts - hardly a troublemaker. I also did not question Hellrazer's moderation - I was seeking clarification on Scartmans's posts but got a warning instead. I did not seek the locking of the thread.

Again, that's what the report button is for. This could have gone down a totally different path if level heads were kept. I understand this is an emotive area on both sides. I find hunting disgusting personally.
But, asking for proof of an allegation is manifestly different than jumping to accusations of defamation.

I also trust that you understand that this thread is, in effect, a continuation of the feedback thread where we are permitted to discuss such matters without fear of retribution.

I've seen the FB thread but haven't read the entire thing.
This thread, however, is the Off Topic thread for the Animals forum as far as I can see... not a place to discuss matters without fear of retribution.
I could be totally wrong on that, but that's just my impression.

If libel no longer exists it seems a little unfair to be warned for mentioning it .

The torts of libel and slander have been done away with in the Defamation Act 2009 and replaced by defamation. I understand that many people haven't moved on, but if you're going to accuse someone of something, at least use the proper name eh?


Again, I'm not a moderator of this forum, nor am I involved any way in boards.ie as a legal advisor etc... so I'm just saying this as a regular poster trying to hopefully explain the situation on level terms so that hopefully spirited debate can continue without threatening and argumentative behaviour.

Queen-Mise

I am putting this picture in here. Its what I love so much about cats & dogs.

Whispered

ShadowHearth wrote: »

i am so sorry, if there were tons of these threads, i checked faq, and could not find all info i need. thank you for patients and advices!

Mods, any sign of this?

ISDW

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This forum, as with all other fora on boards.ie, is not actually pre-moderated.

There was a section here in API that was pre-moderated for a while, which is what DD is referring to. It no longer exists, so you are absolutely right, this isn't, but maybe you didn't realise that there had been a pre-moderated section in here.:)

Whispered

Whispered wrote: »

A few issues from that thread; why is it acceptable for posters to come into a thread and say things about the forum in general, their opinion of the majority of posters, or bring up other threads? It's off topic and serves only to annoy people, very purposefully. Is that not why this thread is here now? I'm not saying that people should a warning for it or anything, but perhaps a bit of direction like "If you have a problem in the forum please report the post or use the feedback thread".

..............

You made a reference to choosing to let some things go, personally I'd prefer for you to warn or infract my posts as necessary if it means that trouble makers can be weeded out and those posters who wish to have a discussion can do so. In all fairness, Dre and Vai both posted in support of CM, and there was no (or little?) sniping or sarcasm. I thought we were all doing very well. Ever the optimist :rolleyes:

In my opinion constant reference to "regulars" and non regulars could serve to encourage a "them and us" attitude some posters feel is prevalent in the forum.

Any replies on this?

Whispered wrote: »

Mods, any sign of this?

any movement on FAQ's of breeding/buying/rescuing?

Are mods now allowing rehoming threads in the forum?

seamus

Whispered wrote: »

any movement on FAQ's of breeding/buying/rescuing?

Feel free to start one and we'll add it to the sticky. Or if you see any threads you think are useful, let us know

Are mods now allowing rehoming threads in the forum?

Nope, But sometimes a report gets missed.

Hellrazer

Originally Posted by Whispered
A few issues from that thread; why is it acceptable for posters to come into a thread and say things about the forum in general, their opinion of the majority of posters, or bring up other threads? It's off topic and serves only to annoy people, very purposefully. Is that not why this thread is here now? I'm not saying that people should a warning for it or anything, but perhaps a bit of direction like "If you have a problem in the forum please report the post or use the feedback thread".

That user is now banned from the forum.He choose to ignore 3 separate warnings from me and I banned him for a week.

..............

You made a reference to choosing to let some things go, personally I'd prefer for you to warn or infract my posts as necessary if it means that trouble makers can be weeded out and those posters who wish to have a discussion can do so. In all fairness, Dre and Vai both posted in support of CM, and there was no (or little?) sniping or sarcasm. I thought we were all doing very well. Ever the optimist

I have started warning for every single breach of the rules.

In my opinion constant reference to "regulars" and non regulars could serve to encourage a "them and us" attitude some posters feel is prevalent in the forum.

Youre right.I`ll try stop saying that when Im posting.

Discodog

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Again, I'm not a moderator of this forum, nor am I involved any way in boards.ie as a legal advisor etc...

But as a moderator you can see that I am effectively banned/censored by Hellrazer from responding to your comments even though there were quoted from & directed to me.

Hellrazer wrote: »

That user is now banned from the forum.He choose to ignore 3 separate warnings from me and I banned him for a week.

I have started warning for every single breach of the rules.

But you have ignored lots of posts where posters have personally attacked the poster & not the post despite saying that you are keeping a close eye on the thread.

Typically a topic starts here & then people post in the hunting forum comment about it & join in, as is their right. Some have no interest in a valid argument & focus on personal remarks. Because those comments are left to stand it encourages others to take their turn.

Whether it is right or wrong the clear impression is that it is OK to come here & be abusive provided you only abuse those that oppose hunting or rescues.

Your on thread comments must be totally fair & unbiased, otherwise you allow some to abuse & effectively ban the abused from responding. A classic example is where you censured me regarding Grizzly's post. He has now used this to post again & continue to go wildly off topic. This would not be allowed in the hunting forum so why is it allowed here ?.

The vast majority of users here can have a vigorous debate on the most contentious of issues without any problems unless people join the thread specifically to cause friction.

From my point of view & I suspect the view of some others we don't need strong or constant moderation, we just need fair moderation with no hint of bias. You took a "back seat" for quite a while & we had very few problems during that period.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

But as a moderator you can see that I am effectively banned/censored by Hellrazer from responding to your comments even though there were quoted from & directed to me.

Your totally and 100% wrong on this Discodog.I suggest you read the pm I sent you and the least you could do is respond to it because in the pm you accused me of ignoring you.
I explained the situation and also explained that I stood up for you despite the fact that you could have been facing a site wide ban.I even pm`d you part of the pm I sent on your behalf so please dont give me this crap that you effectively "banned or censored" by me.

I also pm`d you that I would post a request that anyone posting supposed allegations against a group or individual clarify that in their post and Im only doing that because of the way you feel that these posts were aimed at you so how can you even say that Im censoring you or effectively banning you from the forum??

You never even responded to my pm but instead choose to use this thread to once again put me down.


Quote from the pm.

If it helps Im willing to post that all and any allegations should be backed up with proof thats not directly pointed towards any one person and if its towards a group should be stated in the post.

This time I am taking this personally.Im sick of you making me out to be the one in the wrong here and Im sure that anyone reading this can see from teh content of my last pm to you that Im actually sticking up for you but you cant see it because of the blinkered view that you have.

But you have ignored lots of posts where posters have personally attacked the poster & not the post despite saying that you are keeping a close eye on the thread.

Where?I have acted on reported posts--if the post was reported I either warned or infracted and gave a reason on thread.

Typically a topic starts here & then people post in the hunting forum comment about it & join in, as is their right. Some have no interest in a valid argument & focus on personal remarks. Because those comments are left to stand it encourages others to take their turn.

I choose to leave some of those posts because I feel that they are necessary and I also feel that its probably quite hard for a hunter to come into a forum that is so anti hunting and explain their situatiuon and why they hunt.Its akin to a meat eater going a vegetarian forum and trying to explain themselves.

Whether it is right or wrong the clear impression is that it is OK to come here & be abusive provided you only abuse those that oppose hunting or rescues.

Not correct and you well know it.

]Your on thread comments must be totally fair & unbiased, otherwise you allow some to abuse & effectively ban the abused from responding. A classic example is where you censured me regarding Grizzly's post. He has now used this to post again & continue to go wildly off topic. This would not be allowed in the hunting forum so why is it allowed here ?.

You started that one.You accused someone again of making wild allegations about you in a personal capacity and anyone with half a brain can see that these posts are against the anti-hunting lobby as a whole and not aimed at you as an individual.When are you going understand that??
Hes also explained that in that next post and asked you to stop taking everything personally.

The vast majority of users here can have a vigorous debate on the most contentious of issues without any problems unless people join the thread specifically to cause friction.

What you want is a forum where your opinion is the only opinion and anyone that opposes that should be cut out of the discussion and probably because their argument is coming across in a civilised way and is not making out hunters to be the big bad wolves of the world.

From my point of view & I suspect the view of some others we don't need strong or constant moderation, we just need fair moderation with no hint of bias. You took a "back seat" for quite a while & we had very few problems during that period.

Actually the problems were worse if you read back through the reported posts forum.They may have been percieved as better only because we didnt punish for as many breaches in the rules which is what we are doing now.

Whispered

seamus wrote: »

Feel free to start one and we'll add it to the sticky. Or if you see any threads you think are useful, let us know

Would there be any chance that such a thread could then be edited by a moderator? I can imagine that a thread for such an issue would have comments like

Anti breeding; How on earth can you justify buying a dog......
*doodle lovers; How dare you say my dog isn't perfect, I paid good money for him from a good breeder.......
Various others who lurk to complain but rarely contribute otherwise; That's the problem with this forum, all you people.......

It will be full of bias and opnion. I reckon a "fact sheet" would be better. A good idea to gather the info using a thread. But I would guess it will need opinion edited out.

Hellrazer wrote: »

That user is now banned from the forum.He choose to ignore 3 separate warnings from me and I banned him for a week.

I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same poster, that post was based on the CM thread. I do think that, lately there have been a few posters who seems to post ONLY complain about the forum in general.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Youre right.I`ll try stop saying that when Im posting.

Hellrazer wrote: »

I choose to leave some of those posts because I feel that they are necessary and I also feel that its probably quite hard for a hunter to come into a forum that is so anti hunting and explain their situatiuon and why they hunt.Its akin to a meat eater going a vegetarian forum and trying to explain themselves.

I have no desire to get involved in a DD vs HR debate (clash of the titans :pac:) But I just wanted to comment on this. I think it's great that you are allowing open debate. It's something most people on the forum welcome and are happy to get involved in. There are some comments made by "the hunters" that in my opinion have no place outside their own forum. I think if they are to be allowed post about hunting in API, they should do so under API rules. There have been one or two occasions where I have felt unable to respond in kind to a post made by a hunter/ pro hunts person, without risking a warning. In saying that, there are one or two posters who hunt, who are a credit to their chosen sport. While I may disagree with them, they have been nothing but polite and reasonable in debate.
Of course anti hunt people need to stay polite and reasonable too, but from what I have seen, most of us are, either way I'd like to see both sides moderted to the same extent. So if I make an unacceptable anti hunting (or more to the point anti-hunt poster) comment then I'd like to be pulled up on it, just like I'd like to see the hunters who tend to condescend and pull things way off topic being made treat the antis here with the same respect.

On the same note; of course it must be difficult for hunters to come in here and "defend" themselves. But I wouldn't bother going into the shooting forum talking about being anti-shooting without expecting to get some stick from the posters there. If there was a thread in the shooting forum about being anti hunting for example, I'd expect to be heavily moderated in that thread. And I'd imagine that I would risk a ban quicker than the hunters, because I'm going against the whole concept of the forum. Perhaps rightly so.