Civility (aka the "We Will Crush Your Balls" edict).

[Army Chief]

Gentlemen,

I suspect that more than few of us went to Sunday School as boys, and as such, we should be reasonably familiar with the principle of treating others as you would have them treat you. Even if you never stepped foot in Sunday School, the truths here are pretty self-evident.

We're having a problem around here lately. It's not the spiraling downfall in post quality. It's not the influx of new members who don't yet seem to understand what we're all about. It's not the general rise in white noise. It's not the resurgence in tin-foil hat conspiracy posts. It's not the fellows that have been posting increasingly goofy rifles in the home build section. It's not even the emergence of guys who happen to have particularly strong opinions about the current administration or the latest push for gun control legislation in whatever form.

The problem we're having lies with the otherwise peaceable folks who seem to think that their fellow members no longer deserve a measure of basic respect if/when the opinions of said members diverge from their own dearly-held beliefs (on whatever the topic). We've been very clear on the fact that bitter debates, personal attacks, name calling and baiting will not be tolerated, but apparently the message has grown stale with age. Kindly allow me to freshen it up slightly in the interest of maintaining the peace around here.

If you disagree with a point another member has made, you may freely engage his facts or issues and make your points. If you belittle him as an individual in the process, or otherwise imply that he is intellectually-deficient in some way, we will crush your balls.

If you call another member a name in a manner that is in any way interpreted as hostile or sarcastic (because sarcasm is a huge accelerant -- if not the most volatile of them all), your balls will be summarily-crushed.

If you get into a heated debate with another member that even slightly resembles an open argument (or is laced with the aforementioned sarcasm), go ahead and slap 'em up on the table, because we're going to crush them.

If you direct profanity at another member with even mild ill intent, kindly drop trou. Your balls? Yeah, we're crushing them.

If you happen to think that your position(s) and/or belief(s) on a matter are so sacred as to create immediate offense if/when you encounter someone who might feel differently, do not respond to them. If you do, you will almost surely project an air of ire and intolerance. At that point, you may consider your balls as good as crushed.

I could go on, but I believe the point has been gently made. The staff has been instructed to be on watch for this kind of behavior, and to root it out without a lot of discussion; especially in the near-term. If you happen to wade into those waters anyway, and you happen to have balls ... well, you know the rest. Please take it like a man, and avoid the grousing and protests.

Clear, brothers? Let's make an active effort to "be at peace with all men," and put away any personal gripes we may have against another member. If that approach leads you to take one on the chin when you did nothing to deserve it, let us know and we will take whatever action is necessary to restore tranquilly. Hint: your tormenter's balls, and the crushing thereof, will almost certainly be involved.

This is a professional resource: let us have no more of this sixth-grade crap.

Please and thank you.

AC

[Littlelebowski]

Awesome. You could also just close down GD, ya know

[Army Chief]

We know, Bax, we know ... but the hard lessons of the past tell us that killing GD would just result in these OT discussions spilling over into the more technical areas of the site, which is even less acceptable than the troubles we're dealing with right now.

Truth be told, I'm not a hard-liner kind of guy at all, and the above was written with at least some passive aggresive nod towards humor; that said, we are serious about this, and we've got to get a handle on the bickering. It is beneath the quality standards of the site, and it is dragging all of us down with it.

Members are getting knotted up over it, the staff is running around all over the place trying to referee the skirmishes, and (probably worst of all) new guys are seeing this stuff go down and assuming that M4C is just another Internet free-fire rant zone.

We can do better. We must do better.

Guys that would share their ammo or canteens with any of their fellow members here suddenly want to punch some of those same dudes in the nose because of some goofy position on a social, religious or political issue? That's truly not seeing the forest for the trees.

The view is always better from the high ground.

AC

[Littlelebowski]

I think this is what the staff has to do if nuking GD from orbit is not an option.

Are there any thoughts on those forum members that post solely in GD?

[Army Chief]

Are there any thoughts on those forum members that post solely in GD?

I can speak only for myself here, as I'm not aware of any particularly recent staff discussion along those lines. Personally, if a guy only cares to populate GD, he's probably missing the whole point of this resource, but that (in and of itself) doesn't necessarily mean he's contributing to a problem, or that he should be rooted-out and discarded. The manner of conduct is still what we will tend to use as the GO/NO GO standard in those cases.

What it does mean is that he's chosen to focus on a fairly high-risk area at the expense of far more important ones, and sooner or later, he is likely to get so accustomed to the bickering that he will inadvertently become a part of the problem himself. Not really because that was his intent; just because he's made a habit of staying in an area that sees more than its share of daily train wrecks.

We see much the same thing with members who have a habit of unusually-high posting activity (i.e. the guys who seem to comment on everything just to keep themselves entertained). At some point, some of these guys get so far out of their lanes that they throw out dialogue that simply begs to be beaten down and/or corrected. Again, no malicious intent, but the end result is still discord.

We try to stay focused on the content that shows up on the boards, rather than the individuals who put it there. When the content is not acceptable, or it marks an open invitation for a skirmish, we deal with the member(s) responsible; that said, we don't want to make this stuff any more personal than the guy on the receiving end wants to be singled-out or infracted.

This is why we keep hammering away at the idea that is isn't who you are or what you believe that creates friction; it's how you present your views, and -- here's the real kicker -- how you respond to others who may feel quite differently. We all tend to be fairly passionate about those things that matter most to us, but there is a fine line between suggesting an alternate point of view, and going for the throat of someone with whom you cannot seem to see eye-to-eye.

Some guys aren't aware of that line; others simply choose to ignore it. Both are ripe for involuntary compression of their man sacks.

AC

[munch520]

Thanks for the reminder Chuck! And I apologize that my thread was no doubt a contributing factor to your posting this topic

ETA: I browse many media outlets and usually watch 2-3 (even CNN) to get my news. I like to get it from all biases. Given that, I enjoy I GD for getting news as well; primarily since we are all like-minded and the productive discussion that can ensue. That said, I don't think I'd be for nuking GD.

[SteyrAUG]

I can speak only for myself here, as I'm not aware of any particularly recent staff discussion along those lines. Personally, if a guy only cares to populate GD, he's probably missing the whole point of this resource, but that (in and of itself) doesn't necessarily mean he's contributing to a problem, or that he should be rooted-out and discarded. The manner of conduct is still what we will tend to use as the GO/NO GO standard in those cases.


AC

I happen to be one of those guys. I don't contribute a great deal to the tech forums because in 99% of the cases somebody else already has. There isn't much point in me following a Larry Vickers answer, it's not like I'm going to add some great insight regarding a firearm, it's history or applications that didn't just get covered in great detail.

There have only been a few instances where I had very specific and unique knowledge (such as my posts on the first HK semi imports) where I had a reason to post in other forums. But that has been pretty much accomplished.

For the most part, when it comes to the rest of the forum, I read answers more than I answer questions and usually there isn't a lot of room for debate on most subjects. There are times when people ask personal preference questions regarding guns, gear and applications but being from an older class of shooter I don't know what the cool kids are doing these days so I try not to weigh in with "How cool I think the Beatles are."

Also I enjoy discussing firearms, gear and applications but there is more to life. And I find some of those other discussions far more interesting even if we don't all have a similar consensus like we might have on firearm related topics.

Now there are probably thousands of forums where one can discuss politics, beliefs and philosophies of life. But generally they are largely populated by people who I hold little respect or regard for so I have no interest in their answers on those given subjects. I'd actually be more willing to entertain their sling suggestions.

This forum however is populated by people who have experiences, life styles and outlooks that I do respect. So even if we don't share exactly the same beliefs on everything, they are the only people who I'd consider comparing ideas such as politics, beliefs and philosophies of life with. So long as everyone remembers to not take it personal if somebody believes otherwise it shouldn't be a problem.

I the time I've been here I have found there is only one person I cannot have reasoned and logical discussions with so I simply put that person on ignore. Problem solved.

[Mac5.56]

Guys that would share their ammo or canteens with any of their fellow members here suddenly want to punch some of those same dudes in the nose because of some goofy position on a social, religious or political issue? That's truly not seeing the forest for the trees.

AC

If there was a like button on this forum I would like this thread...

AC I think this is the problem with America, and yea it's here too, and I've contributed too so thank you for the warning. I agree let's make this place better. I'm trying to tone my snarkieness down and stay away from GD and into the real areas of the forum that brought me here in the first place.

[Koshinn]

What's with the obsession with other members' balls?

[Army Chief]

What's with the obsession with other members' balls?

met·a·phor [met-uh-fawr, -fer] noun

1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile.

2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Origin: 1525–35; < Latin metaphora < Greek metaphorá a transfer, akin to metaphérein to transfer. See meta-, -phore

Just seemed like the one inference to a whole new special kind of pain to which most here could relate in some fashion.

AC