Time for M4C Mission Statement Update??

[ucrt]

I hope I’m not being presumptuous or out of my lane starting this Thread. I also put it in this GD to limit input. If I am out of my lane, I apologize.

Lately, the Forum has been getting a lot of “jaga” (just as good as…) threads and posts, gun reviews from someone shooting 400 rounds through a gun, repetitive topics and questions (some just minutes apart), arguments, attitudes, little respect to SME's and Moderators, etc. Questions concerning everything from Barska scopes to Accu-Wedges to how “we’re all jerks for pushing top-tier weapons”.

I think a step in the right direction would be to reword the “Mission Statement”. Not to be insultive, but it is vague and is not “strong” enough to direct people to and tell them, “Does your Post or Thread meet the criterion of the Mission Statement?”

Current Mission Statement reads: “The purpose of M4Carbine.net is to provide a forum to share professional and technical information to the shooting community. The forum is open to military, law enforcement, and recreational shooters.”

With the current MS as a guide, hardly any of the kaa-kaa that has been posted the past month is out of line. With the MS being vague people tend to fill in the gaps with their own interpretation.
Here’s how the “lower-tier” gun crowd's interpretation of the Statement: “The purpose of M4Carbine.net is to provide a forum to the shooting community, discuss “guns” and to provide an outlet for gun people relate their experiences and opinions for the purpose of personal satisfaction. The forum is open to anyone.”

With a strong and definitive MS, authors can be held accountable against the conditions clarified in the MS.

Seems we would all benefit if there was some type of criteria in the Mission Statement that could set the bar at a higher professional level. If someone continually, steps outside the MS, then the Moderators handle them appropriately.

As it stands right now, it could easily be construed that the Moderators are bullies or moody or just don’t like some people; when in actuality, they are personally having to set their own “unpublished” standard and holding people to it.

I do not see how the Mods handle the constant barrage of lazy questions, arrogance, poor grammar, rudeness, etc. I would hate to see Mods quitting because of the frustration.

Below, I tried to incorporate some changes into the original Mission Statement. I don’t think that this "attempt" of the MS is good enough to publish and I only came up with it to provoke thought on the matter.

My stab at improving the vagueness:
“The purpose of M4Carbine.net is to provide an accurate forum and database to share professional and technical information with the serious shooting community about weapons, accessories, techniques, etc. intended for critical life or death situations to educate mainly, professionals in the military and law enforcement, but also the private sector for self-defense, home defense, and lastly, the recreational shooter, yet never compromising the intent to provide accurate information for the professionals.

Participation in the M4Carbine.net forum is a privilege, is open to military, law enforcement, and recreational shooters, and requires due diligence while participating.”

I don’t consider myself a “wordsmith” (as I’m sure you can see), so,
Do you think a revised Mission Statement could help put a more definitive direction to M4Carbine.net?
And what would you incorporate into a revised Mission Statement to help clarify the intent of M4C?

Remember to not be so exclusive with your MS that you leave out military, LE, competitions, HD/SD, target shooting, practicing, gear, training, etc.

Thanks

.

[ChicagoTex]

Unfortunately, Mission Statements are like liability waivers: while everyone SHOULD read them, most idiots don't.

Changing the mission statement to be more hostile to idiots won't stop idiots from posting.

[C4IGrant]

No one reads the tacked threads on the forum.


C4

[SWATcop556]

While the effort is very much appreciated, they are correct. Most new members do not read ANY of the tacked threads. They join and immediately start posting. While it would make our jobs easier in theory I just don't see it curbing the majority of the BS content posted. The best weapon we have against this is the report post feature.

I would die a happy man if I never see/read another "this vs that" thread again. With a little due diligence and searching 99.9% of the information requested has been asked and answered. I personally would like to see a ban on BS "vs" threads before a revised mission statement.

Again the thought and effort behind the post is appreciated. Our membership is the best weapon we have against mouth breathers.

[rob_s]

Mision statements, like laws and rules, serve two purposes.

The first is so that the people that don't need this stuff codified and written down have some reassurance that they are in the right place and doing the right thing. The people that tend to read such things are most often those that don't actually need to be told such things. It could be termed a "feel good" application.

The second, and more important, is to have a codified reason to bitch-slap people that need it. People want a "second chance" and they want to be given a warning. Writing down rules and laws effectively gives that warning. "But I didn't know it was against the rules" is always the excuse of the second-chancer. Having codified rules & laws eliminates that excuse with the response of "the rules are right here for you to read, and you chose to either not bother reading them or to willfully ignore them. this IS your second chance, either way."

Having a more explicit mission statement serves as a catch-all for various types of bad behavior. Our IDPA club forum had become a trash pile of bullshit, and we couldn't enact rules fast enough to deal with the steady stream of nonsense. So we enacted a mission statement that the forum exists to promote the club, it's events, brotherhood among the members, and the shooting sports as a whole. Yeah, interpretation is subjective, but threads on political topics, that often are the ones that turn to shit, clearly aren't within our mission statement and now get axed without comment, question, or explanation. When the poster whines, they are directed to the mission statement. Done deal.

[ChicagoTex]

The second, and more important, is to have a codified reason to bitch-slap people that need it. People want a "second chance" and they want to be given a warning. Writing down rules and laws effectively gives that warning. "But I didn't know it was against the rules" is always the excuse of the second-chancer. Having codified rules & laws eliminates that excuse with the response of "the rules are right here for you to read, and you chose to either not bother reading them or to willfully ignore them. this IS your second chance, either way."

Having a more explicit mission statement serves as a catch-all for various types of bad behavior. Our IDPA club forum had become a trash pile of bullshit, and we couldn't enact rules fast enough to deal with the steady stream of nonsense. So we enacted a mission statement that the forum exists to promote the club, it's events, brotherhood among the members, and the shooting sports as a whole. Yeah, interpretation is subjective, but threads on political topics, that often are the ones that turn to shit, clearly aren't within our mission statement and now get axed without comment, question, or explanation. When the poster whines, they are directed to the mission statement. Done deal.

That's certainly a fair point I hadn't really thought through.

[ucrt]

Mission statements, like laws and rules, serve two purposes.

The first is so that the people that don't need this stuff codified and written down have some reassurance that they are in the right place and doing the right thing. The people that tend to read such things are most often those that don't actually need to be told such things. It could be termed a "feel good" application.

The second, and more important, is to have a codified reason to bitch-slap people that need it. People want a "second chance" and they want to be given a warning. Writing down rules and laws effectively gives that warning. "But I didn't know it was against the rules" is always the excuse of the second-chancer. Having codified rules & laws eliminates that excuse with the response of "the rules are right here for you to read, and you chose to either not bother reading them or to willfully ignore them. this IS your second chance, either way."

Having a more explicit mission statement serves as a catch-all for various types of bad behavior. Our IDPA club forum had become a trash pile of bullshit, and we couldn't enact rules fast enough to deal with the steady stream of nonsense. So we enacted a mission statement that the forum exists to promote the club, it's events, brotherhood among the members, and the shooting sports as a whole. Yeah, interpretation is subjective, but threads on political topics, that often are the ones that turn to shit, clearly aren't within our mission statement and now get axed without comment, question, or explanation. When the poster whines, they are directed to the mission statement. Done deal.

====================================


Rob,
Your second point was my intention for starting this Thread and why I think the MS should be revised.
The excuse that "people don't read the MS anyway" does not hold water because even if a guy with a crappy post did read the MS...his post could probably still fit under the MS's loose guidelines. So, there is no way to claim he didn’t read it, Heck! He might know it by heart...it just was not restrictive to his post.

I don’t know how modifiable (?) the different fields and screens are but I think it would be very handy for the Mods to have a "Warnings: " counter field under the "Posts: " counter field. The Mods would have access to and control the "Warnings: " counter field. They could raise the "Warnings: " count when an infraction occurs. When that person's "Warnings: " counter reaches 3(?), they can get put on JSantoro's "Tree of Woe" or suffer some other consequence. This way a person’s warnings stay with him, no matter where they venture on the Forum, plus it would serve as an indicator of his history.

To alleviate the problem of “no one reads the MS” problem, here is another thought. As I am typing this post and looking at the "Reply to Thread" screen, there is plenty of room to modify this screen to have the Mission Statement posted on this screen with this question, "Does the Post you are submitting comply with the Mission Statement?” This way there can be absolutely no excuse for anyone creating threads and posting outside of the MS and later claiming they didn't know.

I don't know if any of the screen mods I suggested are feasible but as a start, I think we need to change the MS but we do not want the Mission Statement to filter out any and all posts because it wouldn’t be fun and interesting to read and keep up with the Forum. There just needs to be an exact "standard" to assist as a filtering mechanism to try to keep out all of the “justification” posts, “what I think” posts, “jaga” posts, “hostile” posts, etc. to continue to improve the quality on the information on M4C.

.

[C4IGrant]

====================================


Rob,
Your second point was my intention for starting this Thread and why I think the MS should be revised.
The excuse that "people don't read the MS anyway" does not hold water because even if a guy with a crappy post did read the MS...his post could probably still fit under the MS's loose guidelines. So, there is no way to claim he didn’t read it, Heck! He might know it by heart...it just was not restrictive to his post.

I don’t know how modifiable (?) the different fields and screens are but I think it would be very handy for the Mods to have a "Warnings: " counter field under the "Posts: " counter field. The Mods would have access to and control the "Warnings: " counter field. They could raise the "Warnings: " count when an infraction occurs. When that person's "Warnings: " counter reaches 3(?), they can get put on JSantoro's "Tree of Woe" or suffer some other consequence. This way a person’s warnings stay with him, no matter where they venture on the Forum, plus it would serve as an indicator of his history.

To alleviate the problem of “no one reads the MS” problem, here is another thought. As I am typing this post and looking at the "Reply to Thread" screen, there is plenty of room to modify this screen to have the Mission Statement posted on this screen with this question, "Does the Post you are submitting comply with the Mission Statement?” This way there can be absolutely no excuse for anyone creating threads and posting outside of the MS and later claiming they didn't know.

I don't know if any of the screen mods I suggested are feasible but as a start, I think we need to change the MS but we do not want the Mission Statement to filter out any and all posts because it wouldn’t be fun and interesting to read and keep up with the Forum. There just needs to be an exact "standard" to assist as a filtering mechanism to try to keep out all of the “justification” posts, “what I think” posts, “jaga” posts, “hostile” posts, etc. to continue to improve the quality on the information on M4C.

.

I don't think the mods and staff ever need a "MS" to lock an account. There also doesn't have to be a real reason for doing it either. Your a troll and while you did not really break any rules, we are just going to ban you for being stupid.

So I guess the new MS should read:

Don't be stupid and you won't get banned. :D

C4

[SHIVAN]

Don't be stupid and you won't get banned. :D

That's item #2 in the staff manual I have. Under the section, "When to ban people...."

#1 was Chinese spammers.


:jester:

[C4IGrant]

That's item #2 in the staff manual I have. Under the section, "When to ban people...."

#1 was Chinese spammers.


:jester:

You have a Staff manual? :no:


C4

[Chameleox]

You have a Staff manual? :no:
C4

Sure they do; its under the sofa's short leg.


One way to enforce the rule is the LF.net route. Send all new members a welcome email with very specific instructions regarding where a first post should be. Along with the "first post rule", the email can contain the mission statement, ground rules, a how-to on the SEARCH function, links to the stickies, and an explanation as to why the stickies are stickies. Bury the first post thing near the end, so someone would have to read the rest of the info before finding out about where to post first.

That way, when a poster shows up with 1 post under "why Bushmaster got a .mil contract" you know he or she didn't read the email too closely (what else did they miss?), and the members have a chance to redirect them in more ways than one. Posters who do follow directions took the time to read the mission statements, etc. prior to getting to the posting rules.

As if the mods needed justification for banning someone, if anyone puts up a stink about not knowing the rules or what the site is for, well, they got an email- everyone did. The rules and mission statement wasn't in the sticky section, which might be overlooked.


I wondered if a post count rule for starting threads would work, but that would keep a lot of newer members from being able to ask questions that haven't already been answered.

just a thought, or two.

[DragonDoc]

No one reads the tacked threads on the forum.


C4

I wouldn't say no one. I have read some more than once.

[C4IGrant]

I wouldn't say no one. I have read some more than once.

Ya I know lot's of folks read them.

The trolls/village idiots never due though.


C4

[HeavyDuty]

I don’t know how modifiable (?) the different fields and screens are but I think it would be very handy for the Mods to have a "Warnings: " counter field under the "Posts: " counter field. The Mods would have access to and control the "Warnings: " counter field. They could raise the "Warnings: " count when an infraction occurs. When that person's "Warnings: " counter reaches 3(?), they can get put on JSantoro's "Tree of Woe" or suffer some other consequence. This way a person’s warnings stay with him, no matter where they venture on the Forum, plus it would serve as an indicator of his history.


I don't know the exact version of vB that's being run here or what hacks and modules have been installed, but vB supports a very sophisticated infraction system that allows for warnings, infractions and even auto-banning when a certain level of infraction points have been assigned. You won't see any of this unless you're an admin or a mod, so I would assume there's something in place already.

You can be sure a mod can call up info on any user at any time and see how naughty they've been over time.

Oh, and for what it's worth - I strongly support a rewriting/expansion/clarification of the Mission Statement.

[rjacobs]

that would keep a lot of newer members from being able to ask questions that haven't already been answered.


Almost impossible.

I dont think I have read a thread in the past few months that wasnt already somewhere else with a quick search. Hell most of the new garbage threads I have seen I could actually remember that there was already a thread exactly like it without even searching.

I still like the way some forums I am on do it. When you go to start a new thread, it auto pops up a few threads that have similar titles. I think this was brought up in Rob's thread(similar to this one) in another section.

[SWATcop556]

I don't know the exact version of vB that's being run here or what hacks and modules have been installed, but vB supports a very sophisticated infraction system that allows for warnings, infractions and even auto-banning when a certain level of infraction points have been assigned. You won't see any of this unless you're an admin or a mod, so I would assume there's something in place already.

You can be sure a mod can call up info on any user at any time and see how naughty they've been over time.

Oh, and for what it's worth - I strongly support a rewriting/expansion/clarification of the Mission Statement.

We have an infraction system that we use almost daily, unfortunately. It does work with problem children and sends them on temporary or sometimes permenant vacations.

[SteyrAUG]

Honestly when I first wandered into this forum I thought it was just another gun forum and began posting "as usual."

I read the CoC and the MS and honestly didn't see anything that even suggested there was something wrong with what I was doing. And a few people, without explanation dog piled me. And I couldn't figure out what their problem was until somebody explained that they didn't want this forum to become "Arfcom GD."

I was somewhat able to grasp that notion without completely understanding it, because nothing defined exactly what was encouraged and what was discouraged. After some involvement I caught on that the purpose seems to have a better signal to noise ratio with respect to the information provided.

And I honestly don't think the current or the proposed mission statement do anything to solve that problem because they are a blanket statement without examples or definitions.

The most useful thing is "recognized authority" and the noted experts on this forum. I know when asking a question that if that person gives an answer and six other members give a different answer, then six people are giving bad information.

I think that is a lot more helpful than people who are at this point "bothered by anyone who doesn't know this stuff already" and are now dismissive and want people who don't know punished for their ignorance.

Another thing that might help is a FAQ created by the recognized experts. That way when somebody asks something that others feel everyone should know by now, they can simply be directed to the FAQ. It worked pretty well on arfcom until they got so big that it couldn't be contained.

And more importantly, if you just drive all the "unwashed" out nobody benefits, you continue to see them as idiots and they see you as ****ing know it all's who think they are perfect. If you simply correct them then they now have correct information and they can become the kind of member you desire.

[JSantoro]

Lately, the Forum has been getting a lot of “jaga” (just as good as…) threads and posts, gun reviews from someone shooting 400 rounds through a gun, repetitive topics and questions (some just minutes apart), arguments, attitudes, little respect to SME's and Moderators, etc. Questions concerning everything from Barska scopes to Accu-Wedges to how “we’re all jerks for pushing top-tier weapons”.

Bear also in mind that we're still in the midst of an annual post-Christmas influx of folks that just got new computers or guns or both. Steel your mind for the post-SHOT surge; things will get worse before they get better.

The chaff is constantly getting separated from the wheat. It's a cyclical thing, sorta like how one ends up swatting more mosquitoes in the summer than in the winter.

[Jay Cunningham]

Honestly when I first wandered into this forum I thought it was just another gun forum and began posting "as usual."

I read the CoC and the MS and honestly didn't see anything that even suggested there was something wrong with what I was doing. And a few people, without explanation dog piled me. And I couldn't figure out what their problem was until somebody explained that they didn't want this forum to become "Arfcom GD."

I was somewhat able to grasp that notion without completely understanding it, because nothing defined exactly what was encouraged and what was discouraged. After some involvement I caught on that the purpose seems to have a better signal to noise ratio with respect to the information provided.

And I honestly don't think the current or the proposed mission statement do anything to solve that problem because they are a blanket statement without examples or definitions.

The most useful thing is "recognized authority" and the noted experts on this forum. I know when asking a question that if that person gives an answer and six other members give a different answer, then six people are giving bad information.

I think that is a lot more helpful than people who are at this point "bothered by anyone who doesn't know this stuff already" and are now dismissive and want people who don't know punished for their ignorance.

Another thing that might help is a FAQ created by the recognized experts. That way when somebody asks something that others feel everyone should know by now, they can simply be directed to the FAQ. It worked pretty well on arfcom until they got so big that it couldn't be contained.

And more importantly, if you just drive all the "unwashed" out nobody benefits, you continue to see them as idiots and they see you as ****ing know it all's who think they are perfect. If you simply correct them then they now have correct information and they can become the kind of member you desire.

Agree with the above in bold.