Rules Discussions On Uspsa.org

[ima45dv8]

I am ashamed of some of the posts I'm reading over on the USPSA forums. It makes me sick at my stomach to read some of the name-calling, cussing and down-right childishness being put forth. It's bad enough that USPSA members are abusing this rare chance to offer feedback to the BoD BEFORE a new rulebook is published, only to feed their own pitifully fragile egos, but worse yet, more than a few are members of this forum.

Here I've been encouraging as many members as I can to visit the USPSA forum and, even if too shy to offer a comment, to at least vote in the polls. Now I'm embarrassed to think they might discover some of the idiocy I've been reading.

I hate seeing some of my fellow USPSA and BE Forum members behave so poorly in public.

Edited January 22, 2007 by ima45dv8

[jhgtyre]

Well moderated forums are hard to come by. It is an unfortunate fact of life that you have to have a playground monitor or the bullies just run roughshod over everyone.

-ld

[Matt Cheely]

Maybe they can talk Flex into moderating over there

[chendersby]

Fortunately we on the BOD have prettty thick skins.

[AikiDale]

So do I. But making an effort to moderate the USPSA forum to bring its standards of debate up rather than abandoning it to internet entropy still seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

[Wakal]

I'd be a lot more pleased with the process if the Powers That Be would tell us just what on all the gods green Earth they were trying to DO with some of the wildly arbitrary changes instead of taking the position of "Here are your new ("proposed") rules. If YOU don't like them, then YOU explain why you don't like them at length (and be specific!), and MAYBE we will reconsider, but we will NOT explain why we decided to make the change in the first place because you are not worthy of such knowledge" instead of the much more logical "Here is the problem, here is the proposed solution, what do you think" method.

Interesting.

Alex

[GeorgeInNePa]

I'd be a lot more pleased with the process if the Powers That Be would tell us just what on all the gods green Earth they were trying to DO with some of the wildly arbitrary changes instead of taking the position of "Here are your new ("proposed") rules. If YOU don't like them, then YOU explain why you don't like them at length (and be specific!), and MAYBE we will reconsider, but we will NOT explain why we decided to make the change in the first place because you are not worthy of such knowledge" instead of the much more logical "Here is the problem, here is the proposed solution, what do you think" method.

Interesting.

Alex

+1

[smokshwn]

Wakal +10

Chris

Is there any chance of getting this information posted somewhere on USPSA forums. I don't think the explanations have to be incredibly detailed but it would be very nice to know the line of thinking.

I know you have been somewhat active on the USPSA forum and thank you for your efforts, I am by no means singling you out, it just looks like you are one of the few board members who are responding.

Craig

Edited January 23, 2007 by smokshwn

[Rob Boudrie]

I'll discuss the moderation issue with Dave Thomas during some downtime at the upcoming board meeting on march 3/4.

The forums are an official USPSA organ. It is important that members be free to criticize the actions of the directors and officers. It gets into a very tricky area when USPSA starts to moderate commentary for lack of civility, since one person's reasonable moderation is another's censorship.

[galt11]

There were just two people given some moderation rights to the rules forms at the USPSA forums in the rules sections, where most of the posts are located. This should help with some of the problems.

Adam

[Matt Griffin]

Well moderated forums are hard to come by. It is an unfortunate fact of life that you have to have a playground monitor or the bullies just run roughshod over everyone.

-ld

How about well-attended forums? The quality of the participants is the root cause. That's why I read about my sport here, rather than on General Glocking at glocktalk.com.

H.

[et45]

I'd be a lot more pleased with the process if the Powers That Be would tell us just what on all the gods green Earth they were trying to DO with some of the wildly arbitrary changes instead of taking the position of "Here are your new ("proposed") rules. If YOU don't like them, then YOU explain why you don't like them at length (and be specific!), and MAYBE we will reconsider, but we will NOT explain why we decided to make the change in the first place because you are not worthy of such knowledge" instead of the much more logical "Here is the problem, here is the proposed solution, what do you think" method.

Interesting.

Alex

Well said.