What Do You Carry?

[terri]

Hi kids! :sun: Here's an excerpt from the TPF guidelines, aka FAQ's:

*While images containing firearms depicted for the sake of art are permitted, discussion of firearms and related politics is not. Like politics and religion, it is another “hot button” topic that can lead to inflammatory discussion. Such discussion posts will be removed by the moderating team.

OP: the wording of your thread title seemed contrived to invite this discussion, so you might want to re-think such posts in the future. In keeping with the intent of the guideline, since there is nothing particularly "artful" in these images, the thread has been cleaned up to stay on topic.

Thankee!

I have to be honest, I'm a little stunned that my photo was removed. I was unaware of the rule.

I understand that guns can be a hot button topic but, like anything else, those who wrongly engage in heated debate about them should be dealt with.

Banning photos of inanimate objects is incredible and, to be honest, it's something I never dreamed I would see here.

Besides, "artful" is subjective, is it not? I wasn't aware that there's now a panel who determines what is and isn't "artful". Who are those people?

You may not have been active while the discussion was going on, so you missed the update. If you think that banning the gun shots is something you never would have seen here, you must have never paid any attention - we never allowed it, and this goes back to when Chase owned the joint. The new policy is actually more lenient as now posters who include weaponry in an image that is telling a story (or other artful endeavor) and other shots that show family heirloom or other collections are now permitted. They were not permitted before. The moderators, admins and owners decide what passes as artful, and it's not difficult to determine by the criteria I just mentioned (telling a story, making a statement, etc.) rather than a show & tell type image that has nothing to do with the original intent of your thread here.

We're sorry you weren't aware of the current (or past) policy, but hopefully this clears it up for you. These images were reported by members who are aware, btw, and they were correct to do so. Any further discussion of policy should be taken to PM, so we don't derail your thread any further. Thanks!

Carry on!

 

[Steve5D]

...and other shots that show family heirloom or other collections are now permitted.

The gun in the photo was left to me by my father, who passed away on February 15...

 

[Steve5D]

The moderators, admins and owners decide what passes as artful...

This is stunning...

 

[robbins.photo]

...and other shots that show family heirloom or other collections are now permitted.

The gun in the photo was passed down to me by my father, who passed away on February 15.

Does that qualify?

See now that's an interesting question. I own two guns at the moment, a 10 gauge side by side long tom that belonged to my grandfather. I'm not sure if it really qualifies as a "gun" so much as an artillery piece. The second is an M1911A1 that was carried on Iwo Jima by my Uncle Pete. Both I guess could be considered heirlooms.

 

[illuminating_light]

2 16 gig high speed cards and only 1 battery for the time being. I plan to get another for back up, but as of now, have not exceeded it's longevity on a day out.

 

[Overread]

...and other shots that show family heirloom or other collections are now permitted.

The gun in the photo was left to me by my father, who passed away on February 15...

Context is also important and within the context of this thread that information was neither presented (that I recall) nor was it relevant to the direction the thread was going in which was a general "here's my gun". As a result all the gun photos/posts were treated equally for all members (including, you might note, moderators whose posts/gun photos were previous present in the thread).

The moderators, admins and owners decide what passes as artful...

This is stunning...

Moderators have the duty to uphold the rules as set by the admin as well as to interpret posted content and how it relates to the rules of the site.

 

[Derrel]

Quoting Ovberread above where he wrote: Context is also important and within the context of this thread that information was neither presented (that I recall) nor was it relevant to the direction the thread was going in which was a general "here's my gun". As a result all the gun photos/posts were treated equally for all members (including, you might note, moderators whose posts/gun photos were previous present in the thread).


Ummmm, almost right, but not quite accurate. Pixmedic's reference to his carry revolver, the 38 Smith and Wesson Airweight +P referenced in posts 2, and in Post # 6, as a referenced quote, are both still present as I type. Also, it might be a good idea to squash the reference to a hoped-for Ruger in post #14. There might also be a few other firearms references that could cause horrible, awful, bad feelings on the part of gun-haters, but I have not fully read anything past page 2, and a couple of the last posts here on page 3. But I'd hate for it to appear that a moderator can describe his carry pistol by brand and model...you know, Smith & Wesson ,38 caliber, airweight, and capable of handling the more-potent +P loadings...so better squash those dangerous words, you know, just to be fair and all...

 

[Steve5D]

Moderators have the duty to uphold the rules as set by the admin as well as to interpret posted content and how it relates to the rules of the site.

But that's not what was said.

Essentially, according to Terri, the moderators and admins are the arbiters of what is "artful" or, in other words, what is "art".

Do you not recognize that there's a very disturbing issue with that?

 

[Overread]

Moderators have the duty to uphold the rules as set by the admin as well as to interpret posted content and how it relates to the rules of the site.

But that's not what was said.

Essentially, according to Terri, the moderators and admins are the arbiters of what is "artful" or, in other words, what is "art".

Do you not recognize that there's a very disturbing issue with that?

No there isn't. Not unless the admin and moderation of this site somehow comes to become the undisputed global definition of art.

It's a private site which sets its own rules and has moderation staff who aim to uphold them. This thread had purely and simply shifted to a "show your guns off" context which is not in keeping with the allowances made for guns to be posted to the site - hence the removal of that content.

Also please respect the earlier mention by Teri and shift further questions to private messages - or if you wish to remain in the open forum raise a thread in the support and feed back section.

 

[table1349]

sorry Steve, my bad.
I should have known better.
didn't mean to derail your thread.

Bad Moderator.........Bad, Bad Moderator..............10 lashes with an unexposed roll of Kodachrome.

 

[pixmedic]

sorry Steve, my bad.
I should have known better.
didn't mean to derail your thread.

Bad Moderator.........Bad, Bad Moderator..............10 lashes with an unexposed roll of Kodachrome.

Make it hurt so bad, Cause it feels so good when you stop

 

[robbins.photo]

Moderators have the duty to uphold the rules as set by the admin as well as to interpret posted content and how it relates to the rules of the site.

But that's not what was said.

Essentially, according to Terri, the moderators and admins are the arbiters of what is "artful" or, in other words, what is "art".

Do you not recognize that there's a very disturbing issue with that?

I do get your point here Steve but I also see the flip side of the coin as well. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have very strong negative feelings about guns and sadly this often leads to threads that degenerate rather quickly into some very caustic stuff. So really it's something of a necessary evil, the subject matter itself is simply too personal to some.

 

[runnah]

I do get your point here Steve but I also see the flip side of the coin as well. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have very strong negative feelings about guns and sadly this often leads to threads that degenerate rather quickly into some very caustic stuff. So really it's something of a necessary evil, the subject matter itself is simply too personal to some.

I see the flip side to your flip side. Offense is a truly personal emotion that varies person to person. The issue lies within the intent of the action. Me intentionally spraying racial slurs on a memorial is offensive but that was the intended result if my actions. Me saying I am in favor of guns is an opinion and not meant to be offensive. A person may find my opinion offensive but it is their own personal emotion. The issues arises when people take thier own personal emotion and try to force others to feel the way they do.

Everyone has a right to say as they please and everyone has the right to be or not to be offended. It's called free speech and it's a wonderful thing.

 

[Tailgunner]

Moderators have the duty to uphold the rules as set by the admin as well as to interpret posted content and how it relates to the rules of the site.

But that's not what was said.

Essentially, according to Terri, the moderators and admins are the arbiters of what is "artful" or, in other words, what is "art".

Do you not recognize that there's a very disturbing issue with that?

I do get your point here Steve but I also see the flip side of the coin as well. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have very strong negative feelings about guns and sadly this often leads to threads that degenerate rather quickly into some very caustic stuff. So really it's something of a necessary evil, the subject matter itself is simply too personal to some.

I'm not sure Steve was talking exclusively about firearms. The Administrators decides whats art and whats not. Example, if they decide urban decay photos isn't art, they simply ban it under the rule that it's not artful.

 

[robbins.photo]

I do get your point here Steve but I also see the flip side of the coin as well. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have very strong negative feelings about guns and sadly this often leads to threads that degenerate rather quickly into some very caustic stuff. So really it's something of a necessary evil, the subject matter itself is simply too personal to some.

I see the flip side to your flip side. Offense is a truly personal emotion that varies person to person. The issue lies within the intent of the action. Me intentionally spraying racial slurs on a memorial is offensive but that was the intended result if my actions. Me saying I am in favor of guns is an opinion and not meant to be offensive. A person may find my opinion offensive but it is their own personal emotion. The issues arises when people take thier own personal emotion and try to force others to feel the way they do.

Everyone has a right to say as they please and everyone has the right to be or not to be offended. It's called free speech and it's a wonderful thing.

Well, not that I disagree with the sentiment - problem becomes how to you prevent the whole forum from degenerating into a total free-for all, knock down drag out? The forum really isn't the right venue for that sort of thing, nor is it the purpose it's meant to serve. So if folks want to debate the topic from either side i'm sure there are tons of options where they can go and say pretty much whatever they want on the subject from either side.

Granted it would be great if everyone could handle the topic in a mature fashion and agree to disagree - but the track record pretty much proves that isn't the case. So I guess I can't fault the powers that be for trying to prevent what has proven to be more or less inevitable.