Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

I welcome our moderator overloards.

You guys do a good job. So... THANKS!

mropencarry wrote:Since the door is open....
Before we all sing Kumbaya, I'd just like to point out the unfounded rudeness that's being displayed towards prospective members. If they post something that warrants a kick in the shorts that's fair game. But if a sincere question or statement is made and they get snubbed or railroaded (I'll leave out the whos and whats) what incentive do they have to join?.

Leone wrote:.....I have pm'd people when I saw something that shouldn't be here and was thanked for letting them know about it.

Have you tried Leone's approach to the "whos and whats" you refer to?

Wow The big guy don't come out from behind the curtain very often anymore

There's a good reason many of us have been posting here for several years.

Thanks go out to the mods, passions are sometimes hard to restrain

I just noticed that we have 5256 members and only 4725 views on the "Forum Terms of Service, Rules, and Regulations" I think that if the 531 people that have not read that post would read it the mods would not need to work as hard.

I think it is an excellent idea to send out that PM to all new members. It would have been great to have when I first signed up not too long ago, and actually informed me of the Email alerts, which I did sign up for.

It almost seems long winded, but I think it needs to be to keep this place civil. That being said, I agree this is one of the better moderated forums out there (both via moderators and self-moderation).

Leone wrote: we have 5256 members and only 4725 views . . . the 531 people that have not read ...

You cannot make that conclusion. There are people who have viewed the TOS multiple times. Speaking only for myself, I have pulled them up at least 30 times as I have snipped pieces of text to insert into messages (mostly PM).

BobK wrote:

Leone wrote: we have 5256 members and only 4725 views . . . the 531 people that have not read ...

You cannot make that conclusion. There are people who have viewed the TOS multiple times. Speaking only for myself, I have pulled them up at least 30 times as I have snipped pieces of text to insert into messages (mostly PM).

I was wondering about multiple viewings by the same person, but my point is that at LEAST 531 people have not read the TOS. It is probably a much higher number that have not read it. Everyone here should read it .... several times.

MrMagoo wrote:

mropencarry wrote:Since the door is open....
Before we all sing Kumbaya, I'd just like to point out the unfounded rudeness that's being displayed towards prospective members. If they post something that warrants a kick in the shorts that's fair game. But if a sincere question or statement is made and they get snubbed or railroaded (I'll leave out the whos and whats) what incentive do they have to join?.

Leone wrote:.....I have pm'd people when I saw something that shouldn't be here and was thanked for letting them know about it.

Have you tried Leone's approach to the "whos and whats" you refer to?

I'll just say that there was an exchange of pm's.

BobK wrote:That is one reason I spend so much time reporting posts

Ah, so you are the one eh?

Maybe this is as good a place to mention how disappointed I became in the whole Walmart-Brimley thread.

I followed the thread closely at first, reading the first 8 pages or so. Shortly after the police chief posted, it seemed to spiral completely out of control. I quit reading it and only watched as the number of responses quickly climbed into the stratosphere. I never did read the last 200 responses or so, but I've spoken with people who have.

A couple of thoughts came to mind. First, here was a police chief who started as relatively pro-2A, and happens to be influential within our state. Guess that bridge has been irreparably burned.

Second, it seemed like quite a few people were happily carrying the pitchforks and torches, creating the impression that this OFCC is a snakepit, and in many cases aren't even members. People sounding off on our forums end up creating they impression that they speak for OFCC whether the do so in fact or not.

Third, if we are to continue to improve the legislative climate within our state we need to be politically effective. That requires building coalitions. That requires compromise. That requires maturity.

Here is an example where I would have gladly welcomed more forceful moderation before the ship was sunk. I'd even welcome retroactive moderation to delete the most doofus material so that we don't preserve this idiocy for eternity and keep it on display for all to read.

Meanwhile, are there any actions that can be taken at an official OFCC level to repair some of this damage?

BobK wrote:Here is an example where I would have gladly welcomed more forceful moderation before the ship was sunk. I'd even welcome retroactive moderation to delete the most doofus material so that we don't preserve this idiocy for eternity and keep it on display for all to read.

Bob, there's no real way to discuss this without essentially reopening that same thread, so I'll just put it this way: I don't and didn't come to the same conclusion based on that thread. In fact, I found the chief's supporters to be more over-the-top in terms of their reactions than those who considered his replies to be less than Messianic in character.

Probably because I was firmly in the latter camp...

BobK wrote:Here is an example where I would have gladly welcomed more forceful moderation before the ship was sunk. I'd even welcome retroactive moderation to delete the most doofus material so that we don't preserve this idiocy for eternity and keep it on display for all to read.

I think that thread was a tough call. There was a lot of emotion involved, to be sure, but there are strong feelings on the topic, particularly given some of the statements made during the encounter.

If they would have closed it too early, people wouldn't have been happy as they would have lacked the forum to air grievances (and probably just started another thread). Conversely, you don't want to let it go too long and let it get out of hand.

I think they picked about the right spot, given how fast the thread grew.

Personally, I decided early on to stay out of that fray.

Please don't turn this thread into a discussion of the thread that's been locked.

Would it be possible to have a forum for only members? I know that the forums are open to the public for Q&A and promotion of Gun Rights, but a forum to discuss things that maybe the whole world don't need to see wouldn't be a bad thing (so long as we don't make it one)
It would probably not need to be moderated as much and shouldn't be used for any illegal activity and so on. But it would be good to be able to have heated discussions about certian thingd without everybody with a computer being able to see everything we say. I feel like we are at a disadvantage in certian situations because they are able to see all of our discussion about it.

When the whole forum is public and is part of OFCC anyone reading it assumes that everything said is the opinion of OFCC members when in reality not all of the posters are members.



When I say members only I mean Card carrying members not joe schmoe who signed up for a forum account.

And yes I am I just don't have the Site Supporter Tag (Yet)

To all the folks who don't have the site supporter that should, this is still a manual process, please make sure you follow the instructions to get that added after you complete your membership purchase.

Dan and Jeff are working on automating this.