KRA Bulletin redux

[spgordon]

I notice that the previous thread on the ALR members' concerns about the most recent KRA Bulletin has been removed.

Why?

Are there guidelines somewhere that indicate what is and what is not appropriate speech on this list? List members, myself included, often comment on published work--some of it old, some of it new. Sometimes that commentary involves praise and sometimes it involves critiques or concerns. I am puzzled as to why the commentary on an article in the current KRA Bulletin--which I have still not received, though I am a KRA member!--seems to have been off limits.

The KRA Bulletin is not confidential. It is published and sent to members--and members can share the Bulletin with whomever they like. A book of selected issues has been published and made available to the public, whether or not the interested buyer is a member. So, again, why did ALR remove a conversation about an article in the recent KRA Bulletin?

Scott

[Dennis Glazener]

To the best of my knowledge none of our ALR Mods/Admins removed the thread. Personally I think this type of discussion needs to be resolved between the KRA membership and not here on a public forum. I am glad to see it has been removed.

To answer your question about

what is and what is not appropriate speech on this list?

you will find those rules here http://americanlongrifles.org/american-longrifles-privacy-policy-2.htm?action=recent

If you click on View ALR Rules and Policies shown at the top of each page you will be sent to the page that lists the board rules and policies.

Regards to 

So, again, why did ALR remove a conversation about an article in the recent KRA Bulletin?

We didn't! But probably would have before the end of the day.
Dennis

[WadePatton]

Yeah, I saw someone refer to the discussion as "business".  I think "business" refers to the running of the organization amongst the officers and between the officers and membership (or however it is organized).  Was mildly curious as to the discussion as an insight into an organization that is concerned with the American Longrifle.  I suppose serious collectors have those sorts of discussions regularly-what is what and who says so.  But I'll leave it where it went.

OP's can pull a thread.  My guess that is what happened.  I've done it myself.

[spgordon]

Responding to what is below: I don't see anything in the thread whatsoever that violated any of the rules as laid out in that link. So, while I of course understand if the original poster himself removed the thread, I don't see any valid reason for moderators to do so (Dennis suggests below that moderators would have by the end of the day).

I can see the argument that weighing in on how the KRA should run their Bulletin is KRA business. Understood.

I cannot understand whatsoever why critiquing a published research article about a gun, or about the attribution of a gun to a maker, or about an interpretation of the symbolism on a gun, falls outside of reasonable discussion on this thread. It happens all the time and I thought it was one thing this particular section of ALR was meant for: "Study & Collecting of Antique Muzzleloading Firearms."

Scott

To the best of my knowledge none of our ALR Mods/Admins removed the thread. Personally I think this type of discussion needs to be resolved between the KRA membership and not here on a public forum. I am glad to see it has been removed.

To answer your question about

what is and what is not appropriate speech on this list?

you will find those rules here http://americanlongrifles.org/american-longrifles-privacy-policy-2.htm?action=recent

If you click on View ALR Rules and Policies shown at the top of each page you will be sent to the page that lists the board rules and policies.

Regards to  

So, again, why did ALR remove a conversation about an article in the recent KRA Bulletin?

We didn't! But probably would have before the end of the day.
Dennis

[Dennis Glazener]

I don't see anything in the thread whatsoever that violated any of the rules as laid out in that link.

Scott, I feel that the list of prohibited responses listed below should give members a good feeling for the type of discussions that we do not want to have on this forum. If not in the first 5 then #6 should certainly cover it.

Oh, almost forgot, I doubt seriously that any of our Mods/Admins would have pulled the KRA topic without all of us having a discussion about it.
Dennis

Specifically prohibited topics or responses are:

1.  Current politics and religion including but not limited to gun control legislation.

2.  Advertisements of items for sale or services for hire outside the Items for Sale forum or any items or services that are not consistent with the allowable topics listed above.

3.  Any personal attack or personal criticism of another member of the message board.  You can criticize an idea but not a person.  There will be zero tolerance for this infraction.

4.  Defamatory characterizations of the products or services of specific vendors, manufacturers or makers.  Some discussion of products or services that may be construed by some to be negative will be allowed as long as they are specific, factual, objective and do not violate any other prohibitions such as the use of vulgar, obscene, or profane language.

5.  Any discussion of personal business including but not limited to financial transactions, customer service problems, or personal disputes.  The board may be used on occasion to facilitate a meeting or further communication between board members when there is a problem with other communication methods.   Members shall keep their e-mail address in their profile up to date in order to allow for personal communication offline.

6.  Any comments that can reasonably be expected to provoke an extreme emotional  response by other board members.      

[spgordon]

Dennis,

I appreciate the response--and I did read these guidelines before I posted my last response.

And I am not trying to be stubborn or needlessly irritating, though I understand if you feel I've become both those things.

But I don't see why critiquing an article, even critiquing it strongly or wondering why a publication would have published it, could be construed as "expected to provoke extreme emotional response by other board members." In fact, nobody who posted disagreed with the assessment of the article at all!--so it didn't spark any heated debate in the thread.

Nor did anybody in the thread offer a "personal attack or personal criticism of another member of the message board." I'll note that the author of the article is not, to my knowledge, a member of this message board; but even if he were, the posts in the thread critiqued the substance of the article (not the author). In fact, there had begun some discussion about different "takes" on the Kuntz pistol--which I would think anybody actually interested in the gun would have wanted to continue (but now they have been removed by the original poster).

But maybe I just have a very high tolerance for spirited debate and disagreement. I think that's how we all learn things. I would never insist on "free speech" for a list such as this: it is, as I understand it, "owned" by the moderators and they can rightly set whatever ground rules they like. If you join the list, you agree to abide by them. BUT I would insist that as much free speech as possible IS the way that truth gets separated from error and persuasive accounts of things win out over less persuasive accounts of them. So I'm sorry to see the previous thread disappear.

[Ky-Flinter]

A point of clarification.  Dennis Glazener owns ALR.  The moderators hold no ownership, we donate our time to help oversee each of the forums that make up ALR.

-Ron

[Jim Kibler]

I think the original poster was afraid a masonic voodoo spell might be cast upon him.

[eastwind]

I agree with Scott as I too felt no abusive statements were made against anyone or anything else that violated the rules of the ALR.

 The KRA Bulletin is indeed a publication for members, but in this big world of easy communication the contents of the newsletter are bound to show up somewhere in this narrow gun community - particularly when the topic is controversial.
Though I cannot site any particular case I know I've read instances on ALR where some here have heavily criticized certain guns websites were selling. This includes correcting statements made by the sellers. Yet I do not know of any of those websites asking ALR to stop the thread.

Now before you jump ahead and rightfully claim the KRA is not a "public" venue like a website gun seller lets consider this:

1. There are a number of ALR members who are also members of the KRA and the CLA, and a host of other gun related organizations. Is it any wonder that the contents of the Bulletin hit the ALR fast, particularly because of the controversial feature story. And wont that happen again? When it does, the ALR has put itself into the difficult position of deciding if the reply's are appropriate and do not fall under the category of the KRA"s (or CLA, etc.) internal business. Are their so many internal secrets of these groups that they harbor a fear of exposure of something their own members should not hear? Won't many on here be hesitant in the future to get into another critique of a gun or subject in the KRA Bulletin or one of their books? Ultimately, wont that hurt the sharing of information and opinions which stand to educate all of us.

2. Since the KRA also has a website and is now on Facebook, it is already acting as a "public" venue -- open to any critique by anyone. Some of that comment would undoubtedly step onto the business end of the KRA simply by the nature of such complaints. This is a world of some 3 billion people online at all times. Anyone of them can criticize the ALR, the KRA, CLA and you name it group on their own websites or social network. Of course the ALR can stop any discussion it likes , but so long as groups put out their websites to the public, and join social sites like Facebook and Twitter they will still be subject to criticism and that includes the excellence -or not- of your website, your newsletter and internal operations. So why not have it discussed among people of like-kind minds?

In short, like Scott, I don't think anyone on the now defunct thread was overly critical of the KRA. I don't recall my exact reply, but I think I proposed two commonsensical solutions for the KRA to consider for it's newsletter. I'll suggest them again to anyone and frankly I could have done that on their Facebook page which would reach thousands more. Would that be better?

I'm only suggesting we should all be aware of today's communication frontier and these groups should find a coherent strategy for the use of the current technology. If you stifle opinion in one venue you will likely see it in another.

Just my take ...
Patrick Hornberger

[Buck]

Gents,
I pulled the thread, it seemed to had run its course and hadn't had a response for a while. Hurricane (the last to post) had expressed that he felt that it was inappropriate and that it might be time to remove it. I took the hint and removed it myself before the moderators did. Jim Kibler, I find your opinion/comment amusing. I can assure you I am not worried or in fear of a Masonic Voodoo Curse. I was simply pointing out that the Authors timeline of events did not coincide with the establishment of that appendant body of the craft and that his interpretation of the symbolism was incorrect. Nothing more nothing less.
spgrdon, if you would like to keep it rolling I am certainly game to continue on with you. As I stated before, I thought it ran it's course.

Buck

[rich pierce]

Pretty sure an original poster can always pull the thread.  Until it's threadbare.  See what I did there? 

[spgordon]

Well, I didn't start this thread to revive the discussion of the article itself, although that would be fine! My recollection of that thread is that, after some expressions of shock and confusion about the article, folks including Patrick Hornberger had begun to share different opinions about the Kuntz pistol itself. So I thought that was valuable.

I started this thread because I was confused about why the moderators had removed the old thread (which, it turned out, they hadn't!) and what rules-of-the-forum that thread had violated.

[Shreckmeister]

Please repost the emporers new clothes analogy. I loved that one.  Just wait til I find the right jaeger rifle to do a write up about how william shreckengost made it. Since my work day sucked I am glad to see this entertaining thread revisited. Didn't my discussion some time ago about the meaning of inlays devolve into a locked thread.  I love this stuff

[Buck]

I had a discussion about the pistol itself with an advanced collector. Here was his take: German Pistol, French Lock, English Barrel and a miss mosh of hardware. He remarked "the pistol being stocked from ship remains and furniture is unlikely". "1 furniture was too valuable and English wood from an English ship is far fetched, ships were fabricated from wood harvested here that being one of our larger exports".
Buck