Is this a hunting website or a political site??

[ants]

So is it that the politics section of this forum should only apply to politics pertaining to hunting/fishing? I thought this was the section to talk all politics………..Im not being "that guy" Im seriously asking

[phade]

So is it that the politics section of this forum should only apply to politics pertaining to hunting/fishing? I thought this was the section to talk all politics………..Im not being "that guy" Im seriously asking

 

Don't know and I don't care either way, as both would be fine for me. I think it would apply to all, but that's just my interpretation.

 

As long as it doesn't bog down the most used aspect of a forum, I don't care.

Edited July 13, 2014 by phade

[First-light]

clicks clicks clicks that what we are looking for. Those political threads do provide the clicks………...

as for them being in the hot topics I could do without. Tell me about your big buck or triplet fawns you saw, that's it. 

[Doc]

The obvious just went over your head, Doc.

 

The message board has made a decision to allow political threads to populate the recent/hot topics list. That is a site decision. Most other hunting boards remove that political/off-topic sub-forum from feeding to that most commonly used part of a forum - the recent/hot topics list.

 

ArcheryTalk, QDMA, Hunting Beast, you name it, and the hunting forum blocks political posts from hitting that list.

 

I don't think anyone would give a single hoot if there were a billion political posts in that subforum as long as it didn't feed into the recent/hot topics list. At the same time, they know where to find them if they are looking for them, the one sub-forum. Basically, the site is allowing one sub-forum to dominate the entire 41+ sub-forum site through that decision. Again, a site decision. One that goes against the common site management practices for most hunting sites.

 

Plenty of people are agreeing with me, and those are long-time members. So, let's not blame members for a pee poor decision by the site's staff.

 

The "recent topics" list complaint has not been the core of this thread. Up to this point the complaints have been about having a "politics" forum at all on a hunting site. I have merely pointed out that forum use is a member preference thing and there are plenty of forums on this site where hunting topics can be accessed. Choices to visit the political forum is a member decision. 

 

If it is the mechanics part of the site construction that you are complaining about, I would suggest that you contact the one (and only) person who can help you out on that issue. That would be the Owner of the sight, Burmjohn.

 

Personally I wouldn't change that Recent Topics list at all. It is exactly what it says it is..... a compilation of the most recent posts on the entire site. But if you want to suggest going down the path of picking and choosing what forums deserve to be included, you know who you need to take that subject up with.

 

My opinion on the change that you want to make (for what it is worth) is that we currently do not try to steer anyone toward or away from one forum or another by biasing the selection available in the "Recent Topics" list. I think it should stay that way.

[mike rossi]

clicks clicks clicks that what we are looking for. Those political threads do provide the clicks………...

as for them being in the hot topics I could do without. Tell me about your big buck or triplet fawns you saw, that's it. 

 

Just who do you mean by "we"? Because I have been suspecting there are people or robots on here just drudging up the same bull over and over again so someone can make a penny a click or something like that. If that is the case, I want nothing to do with this forum or any forum. That is exploiting controversy, ignorance, and people while damaging our sport and conservation. I know for a fact at least one person on here has two profiles, and its not me or DH either.

[phade]

Just who do you mean by "we"? Because I have been suspecting there are people or robots on here just drudging up the same bull over and over again so someone can make a penny a click or something like that. If that is the case, I want nothing to do with this forum or any forum. That is exploiting controversy, ignorance, and people while damaging our sport and conservation. I know for a fact at least one person on here has two profiles, and its not me or DH either.

Next thing you know, staff are saying they keep the opics list that way because they dont want to steer. Oh wait....

[tony m]

Bots are easy to detect, I have not seen any here unless I missed them. 

 

3% is a good figure of those who spend as much time as they can trying to get hunters to do their own research; that what happens at the power level is going to effect us commoners tremendously, and negatively. I'm a hunter but this modern struggle for freedom puts hunting for sport low on importance.

 

There are some people providing some good information here to read, to look into that subject matter more deeper - on their own. Helping hunters on this site, is not preaching to the choir as attending a 2A rally.  It is on places like here where the only avenue for expanded information, not mainstream fed, happens for many.

 

A free humanity is in deep trouble and the majority of people do not know it.  Thank the 3%'ers for trying to help.

 

 

[ncountry]

We seem to have a disproportionate amount of political topics,esp during the off season. There have been a few things brought to my attention that I was happy to see being discussed. I always click on" new content" and there is a whole page of recent topics , so I don't see any real problems .

[bubba]

The problem is the elite few who do not like it and want everyone to conform to their way of thinking.  Sound anything like any political party out there.  We do not like guns so you can not have guns.  we do not like the political forums so we need to hide them.  

[First-light]

Just who do you mean by "we"? Because I have been suspecting there are people or robots on here just drudging up the same bull over and over again so someone can make a penny a click or something like that. If that is the case, I want nothing to do with this forum or any forum. That is exploiting controversy, ignorance, and people while damaging our sport and conservation. I know for a fact at least one person on here has two profiles, and its not me or DH either.

We meaning the owner of the site. 

[phade]

The problem is the elite few who do not like it and want everyone to conform to their way of thinking. Sound anything like any political party out there. We do not like guns so you can not have guns. we do not like the political forums so we need to hide them.

Assuming does what? Your argument is to 1, call the people who dont want it, sheeple. And 2, compare then to the political party you dont affiliate with. Thats the basis for your argument.

The opt out option is a feasible solution that works for everyone. As long as your not obama, change can be a good thing. You seem to be against it and think the sky will fall if your POV isnt shared.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I go on the recent section all the time to keep up on what is new and active. Am I missing something or does it require too much self control to just not click o the topics? I know many of them are right up there with watching a train wreck. Horrible to see but we just can't help ourselves. LOL. There have been several good threads in that section and with November coming up I think it is just another tool to keep members up to speed. I don't read every thread on the forum, just the ones that seem interesting to me. the others I just don't open.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Culvercreek hunt club

[ApexerER]

This kind of thing always bothers me when I read it.  If you don't like a post don't read it. It is that simple....I have gotten a lot of good information and links off this forum that I would have never seen had someone not posted about it. If all you are interested in his hunting, only read those threads.

[Doc]

There is information in the political forum that describes just who did and who didn't vote for the safe act. There is information where to find out who your legislators are and what district number you live in. There is info on how to get registered to vote. All of these things while under the general category of "politics", are also extremely important this year in terms of voting gun issues and other concerns of outdoor people. They are also essential when contacting your reps on hunting issues. Yes they are hunting subjects, gun subjects and political subjects that might not be available to members if we didn't have the political forum. The political forum was also very useful in keeping up with the Safe Act, and all the activity fighting the act.

 

So in answer to the question asked in the title of this thread, the answer is "yes" on both counts, it is a hunting and political site and it serves the gun, bow, hunting, trapping, fishing, and other outdoor activities in an effort to keep our members in-the-know in terms of what the heck is going on around us and how our activities are impacted by the politics and political figures involved. I think that is essential to any outdoor site.

[Mr VJP]

This thread seems to show how many members are not concerned with those issues.  They don't know, and they don't care.

 

[growalot]

Now VJP...I'm inclined to call you out on that blanket statement...as not being very accurate...there are thousands of members and non members that veiw this site any given week...just because they do not post replys doesn't mean they " aren't concerned with those issues" or "they don't know, and don't care."

 

Sorry to respond..but best I than someone else...

[Mr VJP]

Grow, no offense taken.  My statement was based on the prior posts by members that seem to be offended by the political posts.  Seems to me they don't want to hear any of it.  Just an opinion.

 

[Five Seasons]

There's really just 2 knuckle heads that drive the political crap to death. Best to try to avoid it... Or as I've said, keep all their "news stories" in 1 thread.

[Five Seasons]

The obvious just went over your head, Doc.

The message board has made a decision to allow political threads to populate the recent/hot topics list. That is a site decision. Most other hunting boards remove that political/off-topic sub-forum from feeding to that most commonly used part of a forum - the recent/hot topics list.

ArcheryTalk, QDMA, Hunting Beast, you name it, and the hunting forum blocks political posts from hitting that list.

I don't think anyone would give a single hoot if there were a billion political posts in that subforum as long as it didn't feed into the recent/hot topics list. At the same time, they know where to find them if they are looking for them, the one sub-forum. Basically, the site is allowing one sub-forum to dominate the entire 41+ sub-forum site through that decision. Again, a site decision. One that goes against the common site management practices for most hunting sites.

Plenty of people are agreeing with me, and those are long-time members. So, let's not blame members for a pee poor decision by the site's staff.

Exactly! Keep it off the feed! It's not the self restraint... It's that it drives off new members. There are thousands of forums out there about all sorts of things. I belong to many hunting, car, motorcycle audio/video etc. I go to which ever I'm interested in. There a lot of political forums for those interested in it. I don't mind the safe act discussion but can we please get off the non-hunting, non-gun stuff? Most forums do a good job of filtering the political stuff that at least isn't even in the same interest of the forum. Edited July 14, 2014 by Belo

[Mr VJP]

How about they just change the forum to "Gun and Hunting Laws" and drop the "Politics Discussions" part of the name.  Then add instructions that tell everyone, "Any post dealing with anything political, that is deemed not to be gun or hunting related, will be censored".

 

Then Big Government will control that forum as well.  I guess it's too much to expect a man to just not read a post.

 

Hunting and firearms are what folks do for enjoyment, but not as vital as knowing who and what is attacking all of your liberties.  It's just that guns and hunting are the easiest to take, and will be the first to go.  Anyone doubting that is not paying attention anyway.

 

Take the political posts off the recent topic feed.  Seems some guys are angered by them.  Then they post insults on them to try to prevent them from clogging up the feed.  Maybe that will keep all the insulting posts off the political threads.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Mr VJP

[Doc]

How about they just change the forum to "Gun and Hunting Laws" and drop the "Politics Discussions" part of the name.  Then add instructions that tell everyone, "Any post dealing with anything political, that is deemed not to be gun or hunting related, will be censored".

 

Then Big Government will control that forum as well.  I guess it's too much to expect a man to just not read a post.

 

Hunting and firearms are what folks do for enjoyment, but not as vital as knowing who and what is attacking all of your liberties.  It's just that guns and hunting are the easiest to take, and will be the first to go.  Anyone doubting that is not paying attention anyway.

 

Take the political posts off the recent topic feed.  Seems some guys are angered by them.  Then they post insults on them to try to prevent them from clogging up the feed.  Maybe that will keep all the insulting posts off the political threads.

Actually, this is not really all that bad an idea. There is some value to maintaining the primary theme of the site. It is useful and even necessary to have access to topics that relate to political aspects of hunting and outdoor issues, but we have seen how that can be abused and taken over by only a couple of members turning the whole thing into discussions of political ideology and party politics. I have to agree that that sort of thing has absolutely nothing to do with the outdoor theme of this site and probably should not be forcibly injected into this site the way it has been. Yes, in fact we do censor and limit content all the time. It is a natural part of any forum management. I would completely support a change that would limit political discussion to outdoor issues only, leaving the ideology and party politics to other sites that sort of thing as their theme.

[Five Seasons]

How about they just change the forum to "Gun and Hunting Laws" and drop the "Politics Discussions" part of the name. Then add instructions that tell everyone, "Any post dealing with anything political, that is deemed not to be gun or hunting related, will be censored".

Then Big Government will control that forum as well. I guess it's too much to expect a man to just not read a post.

Hunting and firearms are what folks do for enjoyment, but not as vital as knowing who and what is attacking all of your liberties. It's just that guns and hunting are the easiest to take, and will be the first to go. Anyone doubting that is not paying attention anyway.

Take the political posts off the recent topic feed. Seems some guys are angered by them. Then they post insults on them to try to prevent them from clogging up the feed. Maybe that will keep all the insulting posts off the political threads.

New members will lurk before joining. Chances are they came here through google looking to talk about hunting. When they see a lot of non-hunting stuff, they might leave and never come back. And we could be losing many valuable contributors. I joined a year or so ago and neither of you conspiracy theorists were as active as you are now. You may not loose a whole lot of current members, although like phade said, you may see a decrease in activity. But you're ignorant if you don't think it'll drive away new members.

I've left several sites that have lost their way. Occasionally when I go back you see much lower new topics and less activity. Think what you want, but some enjoy talking about hunting and not that the moon landing was faked. Believe it or not, hunting is an escape for many. It's not that we don't care about politics and whatnot, but it's nice to get away from it.

[jrm]

How about they just change the forum to "Gun and Hunting Laws" and drop the "Politics Discussions" part of the name.  Then add instructions that tell everyone, "Any post dealing with anything political, that is deemed not to be gun or hunting related, will be censored".

 

Then Big Government will control that forum as well.  I guess it's too much to expect a man to just not read a post.

 

I don't see how you make the leap that a forum (privately owned and operated) decision is "big government" control.

 

There are many areas where politics overlap hunting concerns. Hunting in NY is entirely political - all the laws, seasons, rules, etc. are defined and regulated by state agencies.

 

The beauty of internet forums is that they are (or can be) very targeted niche media. They can be defined to serve a certain interest rather than a broader general market.

 

It is up to the site owners/operators to decide how specific they want their focus. There are (arguably better) places to discuss gun rights and political issues. That doesn't mean they have no place or relevance here. There are dozens of issues that could be considered important to hunters/hunting - that doesn't mean they should or should not be the focus of this forum.

 

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I don't mind the political posts and don't mind them in the "new posts" feed. If I see something that interests me, I read it. If not, I don't. No big deal.

 

That said, I do come here for hunting related information. I consider myself fairly well informed on political issues, especially as they relate to guns in NY State. For that, however, I am more reliant on other information sources which are focused on those topics. 

[growalot]

Here I go...brightening up that red target on my back again...lol

 

 Do not kid your self that new "lurking members " go away due to  the "packing of" political posts ...It is the nasty replies. The name calling, the BS that they draw...Same story just a differrent section and the story is narrated  by pretty much the same few members replies...It doesn't make a tinkers damn bit of differance whether it be a political forum, general chat,harvest forums,management,or trail cams there is always something. The name calling ...not believing pics...stories...not liking plotters ...weapons...ppl that use guided hunts..ect..ect..ect.I mean really If you think it is just the, "political Flavor of the month " , that would keep a new member at bay,well your dilutional...They could spend their lunch hour in a high school cafiteria and get the same experience.

No not anyone should expect polyanna replys to all posts...nor should they expect they have to step through a land mined feild any time they post...and as I stand by...its a relative few members...Just like it's  a few members that post political stuff...which has now due, to nasty replies, I will take a guess here...has increased their posting.  Well thats my veiw on it and who gives a crap...lol

Edited July 15, 2014 by growalot

[Caveman]

Here I go...brightening up that red target on my back again...lol

 

 Do not kid your self that new "lurking members " go away due to  the "packing of" political posts ...It is the nasty replies. The name calling, the BS that they draw...Same story just a differrent section and the story is narrated  by pretty much the same few members replies...It doesn't make a tinkers damn bit of differance whether it be a political forum, general chat,harvest forums,management,or trail cams there is always something. The name calling ...not believing pics...stories...not liking plotters ...weapons...ppl that use guided hunts..ect..ect..ect.I mean really If you think it is just the, "political Flavor of the month " , that would keep a new member at bay,well your dilutional...They could spend their lunch hour in a high school cafiteria and get the same experience.

No not anyone should expect polyanna replys to all posts...nor should they expect they have to step through a land mined feild any time they post...and as I stand by...its a relative few members...Just like it's  a few members that post political stuff...which has now due, to nasty replies, I will take a guess here...has increased their posting.  Well thats my veiw on it and who gives a crap...lol

 

I have to agree with this for the most part.  I joined this forum at the very beginning, when it was first created.  I only have a few posts here.  Why? Almost every thread in this forum turns into a few members bashing each other.  And typically it goes beyond just a friendly debate, it gets downright nasty.  Of course, political discussions tend to invite this type of atmosphere, but it's not confined to politics.  Just about about anything gets the ball rolling.  Crossbows, food plots, antler restrictions, QDM, rifle or shotgun, rifle-caliber "pistols," fenced hunting reserves, the list goes on and on.  Of course, not everyone is guilty of this.  I'm sure if you really look at it it's the same handful of members again and again.  However, it gives the impression of this forum as a whole as a very negative place.  If anything is going to scare away lurking newbs, it's the fact that this entire forum comes across as Grow very accurately put it, like a high-school cafeteria.  

 

As to the original discussion, would there be a way that you could opt out of having the political threads in the new posts section.  That way people can choose for themselves.