DoneDeal no-hunting/shooting policy - Read mod note #138

kildare.17hmr

We are all grown ups here, i think if someone is apposed they should at least let us know why

smokin ace

that pole was a brilliant idea to add :Dbut cant believe someone voted no :eek::eek:

Tackleberrywho

smokin ace wrote: »

that pole was a brilliant idea to add :Dbut cant believe someone voted no :eek::eek:

2 have :eek::eek:

I wonder who

kildare.17hmr

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

2 have :eek::eek:

I wonder who

I wonder if they will all hide behind the little no button and keep quiet:rolleyes:

tfox

Now guys everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as its not forced upon others there's nothing wrong with it.

Just remember I'm sure there's more than us shooting folk that look at ths forum

smokin ace

tfox wrote: »

Now guys everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as its not forced upon others there's nothing wrong with it.

Just remember I'm sure there's more than us shooting folk that look at ths forum

yes your right BUT WHY

Tackleberrywho

smokin ace wrote: »

yes your right BUT WHY

Trolls lurk on the Hunting forums to try and find areas they can try and nabb hunters on.

smokin ace

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Trolls lurk on the Hunting forums to try and find areas they can try and nabb hunters on.

there is 3 trolls going around here then
anyone hear any news on the meeting at done deal

Tackleberrywho

smokin ace wrote: »

would the trolls you speak about look like this
http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fxdeco.com/makeup/troll.jpg&imgrefurl=http://seeker6079.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-identify-troll-beginners-guide.html&usg=__m5paLb

No Image there??
Have you the full link?

smokin ace

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

No Image there??
Have you the full link?

i made a mess of it so i cancelled it
i think i have it now
http://www.fxdeco.com/makeup/troll.jpg
are these the trolls you speak of

kildare.17hmr

smokin ace wrote: »

i made a mess of it so i cancelled it

tut tut:p

pedroeibar1

DonnaDoneDeal wrote: »

..........................We are a classifieds website for general sale of items, we are NOT a website specific for hunting and therefore some of our terms and conditions are not going to apply to your specific requests.

Only catching up on this now.

As I see it, DoneDeal has two separate issues.
The first is how to handle “complaints” by anti-hunting people for advertising items that do not conform to the anti-hunting agenda.

The second is how to handle the advertising of items that could be outside the law and thus leave them open to prosecution.

Unless they are asleep DoneDeal would know that hunting items pose far less risk to DoneDeal than fake designer gear such as this http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/womenclothes/1552822 or this http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/womenclothes/1511754 that currently are advertised. They would be fully aware that earlier this year eBay was fined a few hundred thousand euro in Paris for facilitating the sale of fake Louis Vuitton and will be fined €1k for every future item advertised.

Hopefully Donedeal is aware by now that hunters are not going to be foolish enough to lose their licences forever for doing something stupid, like selling a firearm illegally. On the other hand, somebody with fake designer labels operating from a garage can get away with doing stupid things for as long as there are garages – it is much easier to go after the intermediary, as LVMH proved!!

An option open to DoneDeal is to allow hunting merchandise advertisers post a brief advert (one that will trap keyword search) with a link to a bigger advert on the Boards.ie for sale page. In the event of a sale an ‘honour system’ payment of €5 to Boards.ie could prove a nice little earner.;)

In fairness, Donna should be thanked for her interest, she is being very fair.
P.

No6

Still though 48 votes in a few hours isn't bad, there could of course also be one or two who will vote no when they see this thread pop up on the main boards page like just after I post this!!:D

jap gt

4 votes against, not bad, but why vote and not give a reason, just curious to know why you dont think its a good idea

Sparks

The 52 for votes didn't give a reason either jap, just let it go already. This is why small groups like ICABS are given disproportionate amounts of influence; people need a wee bit of perspective.

ILA

I voted no. I'm against most forms of hunting from a moral perspective, and I don't buy any of the "culling" crap that is often spewed to defend outdated practices or tradition.

Thankfully there's not much hunting in the rural area where I live. They stopped a few years ago, as I just called the Gardai to the field where the shots were coming from and there has been no more shooting in the area since.

As long as hunters keep away, it's live and let live. If they appear and start shooting up the peaceful countryside around my home then expect resistance.

Note: I'm not here to debate, just giving my tuppence worth,

johngalway

Given the chances the above post may be looking for a particular type of reply, bear in mind when composing any and all replies to it that it was asked for.

It wasn't me!

ILA wrote: »

I voted no. I'm against most forms of hunting from a moral perspective, and I don't buy any of the "culling" crap that is often spewed to defend outdated practices or tradition.

Thankfully there's not much hunting in the rural area where I live. They stopped a few years ago, as I just called the Gardai to the field where the shots were coming from and there has been no more shooting in the area since.

As long as hunters keep away, it's live and let live. If they appear and start shooting up the peaceful countryside around my home then expect resistance.

Note: I'm not here to debate, just giving my tuppence worth,

To be honest, it would be much better for all concerned here - as I personally am driven to respond to your post - if you would engage with people with whom you disagree. I personally would like to explain a few things to you, but there's no point if you're going to ignore established ecological practice and just leave the forum after posting once.

Tackleberrywho

ILA wrote: »

I voted no. I'm against most forms of hunting from a moral perspective, and I don't buy any of the "culling" crap that is often spewed to defend outdated practices or tradition.

Thankfully there's not much hunting in the rural area where I live. They stopped a few years ago, as I just called the Gardai to the field where the shots were coming from and there has been no more shooting in the area since.

As long as hunters keep away, it's live and let live. If they appear and start shooting up the peaceful countryside around my home then expect resistance.

Note: I'm not here to debate, just giving my tuppence worth,

Welcome to the Shooting Forum.
Thank you for voicing your opinion.

At least we now know who voted against.

jap gt

Sparks wrote: »

The 52 for votes didn't give a reason either jap, just let it go already. This is why small groups like ICABS are given disproportionate amounts of influence; people need a wee bit of perspective.

what?? let what exactly go?? i have given my reason, am i not aloud to ask someones reason in a discussion?? im not going having a go at anyone that wants to voice THEIR opinion, im just interested in what THEY have the say if thats ok with you

jap gt

ILA wrote: »

I voted no. I'm against most forms of hunting from a moral perspective, and I don't buy any of the "culling" crap that is often spewed to defend outdated practices or tradition.

Thankfully there's not much hunting in the rural area where I live. They stopped a few years ago, as I just called the Gardai to the field where the shots were coming from and there has been no more shooting in the area since.

As long as hunters keep away, it's live and let live. If they appear and start shooting up the peaceful countryside around my home then expect resistance.

Note: I'm not here to debate, just giving my tuppence worth,

thanks at least you came on to let us know, hard to have a debate with out people from both sides having their say

Sparks

jap gt wrote: »

what?? let what exactly go?? i have given my reason, am i not aloud to ask someones reason in a discussion??

Don't be daft, of course you are.
It's just that that isn't what was happening here. There was an anonymous poll put up, and you were demanding (not asking, not in context) what one side was voting no for, when it was obvious it was going to be because they didn't support hunting.

If people who voted no come on and give their view (which they were free to do), that would be a discussion; but you were calling them out. Not the same thing.

And not it's not helpful to hunting or shooting in general, by the way, because it's this sort of thing is exactly what legitimises extremist idiots like ICABS - ie. folk who, despite being self-evidently in the right morally and legally, get into arguments with the likes of those who are sent to prison because they commit illegal acts in lieu of civilised debate.

jap gt

Sparks wrote: »

Don't be daft, of course you are.
It's just that that isn't what was happening here. There was an anonymous poll put up, and you were demanding (not asking, not in context) what one side was voting no for, when it was obvious it was going to be because they didn't support hunting.

If people who voted no come on and give their view (which they were free to do), that would be a discussion; but you were calling them out. Not the same thing.

And not it's not helpful to hunting or shooting in general, by the way, because it's this sort of thing is exactly what legitimises extremist idiots like ICABS - ie. folk who, despite being self-evidently in the right morally and legally, get into arguments with the likes of those who are sent to prison because they commit illegal acts in lieu of civilised debate.

i fail to see the problem in asking someone who took the time to answer a poll about hunting, what the reason behind the vote was, this is a shooting forum which would have you believe its hunters that vote, if a no vote comes up i would like to know if its a hunter thats against the ads

johngalway

jap gt wrote: »

this is a shooting forum which would have you believe its hunters that vote, if a no vote comes up i would like to know if its a hunter thats against the ads

To clarify something here

The first line of this forums charter reads as follows;

"This forum is for the discussion of sports shooting related subjects, including techniques, equipment and events, in all disciplines; as well as for discussion of shooting as it pertains to hunting in Ireland."

So the forum is about shooting, but to say it's a shooting forum, or a forum singularly for hunters, isn't technically correct. Once that's grasped it's easier to see how and why people with different views arrive in and have their say. "Discussion" is the all important word there. We're not insulated from the rest of the worlds views, sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not. How we deal with it is important though.

The forum is one of many, I don't know how many but a hell of a lot, hundreds if not more, which makes up the entire site. Most members have access to most forums, updated threads show up on the home page from all across the forums. So in reality anyone can see a thread title, click on it, and post, without ever having to physically click that they want to enter the Shooting forum. They just enter the thread directly.

Sparks

jap gt wrote: »

i fail to see the problem in asking someone who took the time to answer a poll about hunting, what the reason behind the vote was, this is a shooting forum which would have you believe its hunters that vote, if a no vote comes up i would like to know if its a hunter thats against the ads

/facepalm

Okay, here it is, bluntly.
Until people started demanding (not asking) to know why 5 people voted no, nobody cared about them.
All anyone saw was 50-odd votes in favour against a tiny number against.
Now, we have a dozen or so posts highlighting those who voted against, wondering why they did so, trying to get them to post here, presumably to kill time by having Yet Another entrenched shouting match for entertainment.
This is why people listen to ICABS and HSI and the other extremist idiots. Because for some reason, people are more interested in the fight than in the end result, and we insist on obliging them instead of getting what we want. Which is also, for those that missed it, the reason for about half of the politics that strangles our sports' administration and puts so many off volunteering to help.

pedroeibar1

I think the poll was a stupid idea - a poll on any activity-specific site will get a no-brainer response until the 'anti' side find out about it and get their friends to vote to skew the results. It tells us nothing.
P

jap gt

no need for the facepalm :mad: i asked a question, i didnt asked to be talked down to, i for one would like the people that voted no to post here, just out of interest to see what their reasons are and maybe change their opinions, i got the reply i wanted no one started a slagging match so wheres the harm

johngalway

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I think the poll was a stupid idea - a poll on any activity-specific site will get a no-brainer response until the 'anti' side find out about it and get their friends to vote to skew the results. It tells us nothing.
P

It tells us the number Pedro. Numbers are what's important to a business like Donedeal. The idea being that more people - limited to the users of this site who see the actual thread - are against the no lamping policy than for it, therefore it may in some way negatively affect their revenue. So that may show Donedeal it's not actually in their interests to keep up such a policy into the future.

Or we cave, attempt to change nothing, and accept all ICABS, The Green Party and the like would have us force fed.

Tackleberrywho

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I think the poll was a stupid idea - a poll on any activity-specific site will get a no-brainer response until the 'anti' side find out about it and get their friends to vote to skew the results. It tells us nothing.
P

There should be just yes vote then so, all the poll is to see how many would like to see Donedeal adverts on hunting.

We already know a small minority do not want it.
We want to show how many do want it,
So get Voting Guys and Gals!

Sparks

If it was just a vote yes poll, we'd be better served just pointing out how many people are involved in fieldsports, because we already know that number, and none of them (bar any working for donedeal's competitors) would have any reason to vote no.