Free: Contests & Raffles.
Have you read any of the post from the one from the last year?He was quite the instigator.
Quote from: JJB11B on December 31, 2016, 03:35:40 PMIs Steve.Miller coming back too?He is no more....or is he......He may or may not have reincarnated himself depending on who you ask. Possibly the direction of the wind may affect that.
Is Steve.Miller coming back too?
So the instigator got away without any discipline? Something doesn't seem right there.
Bighammer is coming back as Littlehammer.
Quote from: Skyvalhunter on December 31, 2016, 05:02:51 PMSo the instigator got away without any discipline? Something doesn't seem right there.He didn't technically break any rules, but he will be watched a lot closer now.
Investing, and buying leniency are two different things. You seem eloquently spoken enough, you can probably discern the difference. A chest thumping ankle biter constantly harassing clients, or the neighborhood, will eventually be put down. (Love the dog analogy). It's very difficult to be permanently banned, as Dale is one of the most thoughtful, forgiving folks I know of. It takes some kind of special to get yourself in that predictament unless you post kiddy porn or threaten to kill or inflict bodily harm.
I wear the little banner "My opinion does not reflect the official opinion of HW" just for instances like these when I make a mistake. It's not a perfect shield nor gives me carte' blanche to say what I want though. Thank you for pointing that out by the way although it's a clever distraction from the true intent of the message and blown out of proportion like a clever debater would do. My intent was not to make light of current and future sponsors I think you knew that. I shouldn't have said "piddley". Politics belong in OT, I just got done warning some folks who like to talk about politics to keep it there, especially after this last election cycle nerves are especially raw when it comes to politics. I didn't take this thread as "tongue and cheek" but rather a beat around the bush critique of the moderator team on HW.
Quote from: KFhunter on December 31, 2016, 01:39:01 PMQuote from: yorketransport on December 31, 2016, 12:37:26 PMQuote from: KFhunter on December 31, 2016, 12:10:03 PM but for some reason the shooting section seems to collect members who cannot get the hint and continue to flaunt and push the rules until finally they're banned. Ya, they could have been great ambassadors for long range shooting and did some real good for the sport, sharing knowledge, but instead choose to do otherwise which does no good for the sport and drives people (and money) away. Expertise and knowledge shouldn't come with the price of being belittled or berated. Part of this comes from the amount of mis-information that pops up in that section. There are so many discouraging half-truths stated in that section that it's genuinely frustrating at times. We all know that there are a handful of topics specific to shooting equipment and methods that seem to be a hot button on this forum. That's fine, but it's just as discouraging and can drive just as many people away when the ethics of fellow hunters are called into question based solely on their equipment choice. The most prevalent debates in that section and others stem from imposing one person's personal ethics (or limitations) on others. That's discouraging to new shooters and hunters. Age wise I fall into no man's land being 35. It's hard to deny the changing demographic of the sport as younger shooters get interested. It's possible that this site is simply catering to a more traditional group of shooters. By doing that though, you're already choosing to discourage an up and coming class of shooters. Doing that does nothing to help boost add revenue. The reality is that I've considered paying for add space on this site in the past and will certainly do so again in the future. The tone of this site sometimes discourages Jay.Sharkbait, BiggerHammer and myself from doing so though. There is no way to quantify the value of revenue either generated or lost based on individual members. Perhaps the potential revenue lost by the three of us not purchasing add space on this site will be off set by the more frequent use of those individuals driven away by the absence of former members. Again, hoping to gain future revenue based on decisions made today falls under the realm of risk analysis which isn't my forte. I just hope that it is the specialty of others on here making decisions.I wasn't talking about HW site sponsor money, that didn't even cross my mind and the threat of withholding that piddly fee is laughable at best. I was talking about money being driven away from small local businesses in the shooting industry, businesses that might want their products in your hands so you can spread the word how awesome it is.Reffering to banner add sponsorship money as piddley sends a bad massage to those small local businesses who spend their limited advertising budget on add space here. Then in the next sentence you make reference to the money being driven away from the same business who's money you just belittled. This type of attitude presented by a forum moderator is what pushes the revenue elsewhere. Don't worry, I won't embarrass myself by giving my money to the forum. I'll make sure your sentiments are passed on to a handful of the other sponsors who're currently spending a piddly and laughable sum of money on add space here. It did occur to me that the same sort of behavior that will get an individual banned from HuntWa is the same behavior that will get you elected as president. It appears being brash, abrasive, verbally abusive, opinionated and crude uniquely qualifies somebody to lead the nation. Dare I say that we need a leader like that on HuntWa to make the site great again? I should probably point out that the original nature of this entire post was as a tounge-in-cheek commentary more than anything. The business of running the forum isn't mine to worry about fortunately. I just come here because I get destructive if left at home alone for extended periods of time.
Quote from: yorketransport on December 31, 2016, 12:37:26 PMQuote from: KFhunter on December 31, 2016, 12:10:03 PM but for some reason the shooting section seems to collect members who cannot get the hint and continue to flaunt and push the rules until finally they're banned. Ya, they could have been great ambassadors for long range shooting and did some real good for the sport, sharing knowledge, but instead choose to do otherwise which does no good for the sport and drives people (and money) away. Expertise and knowledge shouldn't come with the price of being belittled or berated. Part of this comes from the amount of mis-information that pops up in that section. There are so many discouraging half-truths stated in that section that it's genuinely frustrating at times. We all know that there are a handful of topics specific to shooting equipment and methods that seem to be a hot button on this forum. That's fine, but it's just as discouraging and can drive just as many people away when the ethics of fellow hunters are called into question based solely on their equipment choice. The most prevalent debates in that section and others stem from imposing one person's personal ethics (or limitations) on others. That's discouraging to new shooters and hunters. Age wise I fall into no man's land being 35. It's hard to deny the changing demographic of the sport as younger shooters get interested. It's possible that this site is simply catering to a more traditional group of shooters. By doing that though, you're already choosing to discourage an up and coming class of shooters. Doing that does nothing to help boost add revenue. The reality is that I've considered paying for add space on this site in the past and will certainly do so again in the future. The tone of this site sometimes discourages Jay.Sharkbait, BiggerHammer and myself from doing so though. There is no way to quantify the value of revenue either generated or lost based on individual members. Perhaps the potential revenue lost by the three of us not purchasing add space on this site will be off set by the more frequent use of those individuals driven away by the absence of former members. Again, hoping to gain future revenue based on decisions made today falls under the realm of risk analysis which isn't my forte. I just hope that it is the specialty of others on here making decisions.I wasn't talking about HW site sponsor money, that didn't even cross my mind and the threat of withholding that piddly fee is laughable at best. I was talking about money being driven away from small local businesses in the shooting industry, businesses that might want their products in your hands so you can spread the word how awesome it is.
Quote from: KFhunter on December 31, 2016, 12:10:03 PM but for some reason the shooting section seems to collect members who cannot get the hint and continue to flaunt and push the rules until finally they're banned. Ya, they could have been great ambassadors for long range shooting and did some real good for the sport, sharing knowledge, but instead choose to do otherwise which does no good for the sport and drives people (and money) away. Expertise and knowledge shouldn't come with the price of being belittled or berated. Part of this comes from the amount of mis-information that pops up in that section. There are so many discouraging half-truths stated in that section that it's genuinely frustrating at times. We all know that there are a handful of topics specific to shooting equipment and methods that seem to be a hot button on this forum. That's fine, but it's just as discouraging and can drive just as many people away when the ethics of fellow hunters are called into question based solely on their equipment choice. The most prevalent debates in that section and others stem from imposing one person's personal ethics (or limitations) on others. That's discouraging to new shooters and hunters. Age wise I fall into no man's land being 35. It's hard to deny the changing demographic of the sport as younger shooters get interested. It's possible that this site is simply catering to a more traditional group of shooters. By doing that though, you're already choosing to discourage an up and coming class of shooters. Doing that does nothing to help boost add revenue. The reality is that I've considered paying for add space on this site in the past and will certainly do so again in the future. The tone of this site sometimes discourages Jay.Sharkbait, BiggerHammer and myself from doing so though. There is no way to quantify the value of revenue either generated or lost based on individual members. Perhaps the potential revenue lost by the three of us not purchasing add space on this site will be off set by the more frequent use of those individuals driven away by the absence of former members. Again, hoping to gain future revenue based on decisions made today falls under the realm of risk analysis which isn't my forte. I just hope that it is the specialty of others on here making decisions.
but for some reason the shooting section seems to collect members who cannot get the hint and continue to flaunt and push the rules until finally they're banned. Ya, they could have been great ambassadors for long range shooting and did some real good for the sport, sharing knowledge, but instead choose to do otherwise which does no good for the sport and drives people (and money) away. Expertise and knowledge shouldn't come with the price of being belittled or berated.
Quote from: boneaddict on December 31, 2016, 12:48:16 PMInvesting, and buying leniency are two different things. You seem eloquently spoken enough, you can probably discern the difference. A chest thumping ankle biter constantly harassing clients, or the neighborhood, will eventually be put down. (Love the dog analogy). It's very difficult to be permanently banned, as Dale is one of the most thoughtful, forgiving folks I know of. It takes some kind of special to get yourself in that predictament unless you post kiddy porn or threaten to kill or inflict bodily harm.It's important that this comment doesn't get entirely over looked. While you and I know that this comment isn't at all relevant to the current conversation, not everyone else does. Could you do us all a favor and clarify that you understand that NONE of those reasons were factors in the ban of Jay.sharkbait. Those are dangerous comments to indirectly imply which is what you did there. Quote from: KFhunter on December 31, 2016, 04:26:01 PMI wear the little banner "My opinion does not reflect the official opinion of HW" just for instances like these when I make a mistake. It's not a perfect shield nor gives me carte' blanche to say what I want though. Thank you for pointing that out by the way although it's a clever distraction from the true intent of the message and blown out of proportion like a clever debater would do. My intent was not to make light of current and future sponsors I think you knew that. I shouldn't have said "piddley". Politics belong in OT, I just got done warning some folks who like to talk about politics to keep it there, especially after this last election cycle nerves are especially raw when it comes to politics. I didn't take this thread as "tongue and cheek" but rather a beat around the bush critique of the moderator team on HW.You may give me more credit than I deserve in some respects and not enough in others. I rarely beat around the bush when being critical of others; passive aggressive isn't my thing. Subtle, negative spin on factual events is more my style. It's classier!
Quote from: yorketransport on December 31, 2016, 05:32:13 PMQuote from: boneaddict on December 31, 2016, 12:48:16 PMInvesting, and buying leniency are two different things. You seem eloquently spoken enough, you can probably discern the difference. A chest thumping ankle biter constantly harassing clients, or the neighborhood, will eventually be put down. (Love the dog analogy). It's very difficult to be permanently banned, as Dale is one of the most thoughtful, forgiving folks I know of. It takes some kind of special to get yourself in that predictament unless you post kiddy porn or threaten to kill or inflict bodily harm.It's important that this comment doesn't get entirely over looked. While you and I know that this comment isn't at all relevant to the current conversation, not everyone else does. Could you do us all a favor and clarify that you understand that NONE of those reasons were factors in the ban of Jay.sharkbait. Those are dangerous comments to indirectly imply which is what you did there. Quote from: KFhunter on December 31, 2016, 04:26:01 PMI wear the little banner "My opinion does not reflect the official opinion of HW" just for instances like these when I make a mistake. It's not a perfect shield nor gives me carte' blanche to say what I want though. Thank you for pointing that out by the way although it's a clever distraction from the true intent of the message and blown out of proportion like a clever debater would do. My intent was not to make light of current and future sponsors I think you knew that. I shouldn't have said "piddley". Politics belong in OT, I just got done warning some folks who like to talk about politics to keep it there, especially after this last election cycle nerves are especially raw when it comes to politics. I didn't take this thread as "tongue and cheek" but rather a beat around the bush critique of the moderator team on HW.You may give me more credit than I deserve in some respects and not enough in others. I rarely beat around the bush when being critical of others; passive aggressive isn't my thing. Subtle, negative spin on factual events is more my style. It's classier! Jay.sharkbait got a temporary 7 day ban for calling another member a dbag. I banned him for that reason and that reason alone.
