Zero tolerance strikes again

Glad that the Clarksville high school honor roll student and JROTC cadet didn't have a fired shotgun shell in the vehicle he drove to school that day.

http://jpfo.org/alerts2014/alert20140304.htm

he is clearly evil and it should require summary execution ... then and only then would have have learned his lesson (that is: no searches w/o a warrant duh)

(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.

Citizen said:

(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.

Click to expand...

The young man is in his formative years, involved with JROTC, had possession of a tool common to RKBA - all occurring in a specific state - posted in accordance with guidelines. These conditions have been deemed satisfactory for inclusion countless times before as you have been made aware.

Open discussion of the FACTS is acceptable. Public challenge of moderation is not.

Grapeshot said:

The young man is in his formative years, involved with JROTC, had possession of a tool common to RKBA - all occurring in a specific state - posted in accordance with guidelines. These conditions have been deemed satisfactory for inclusion countless times before as you have been made aware.

Open discussion of the FACTS is acceptable. Public challenge of moderation is not.

Click to expand...

This is very curious. I didn't challenge the moderation. You are the one who made it about moderation. I pointed out that the thread was off-topic and in violation of the plain language of the rules. I am sorry if the violator happens to also be a moderator, but just because you are a moderator does not make every comment or post of yours moderation-related.

In any event, the thread is clearly, undeniably, facially off-topic. This forum has a long history of self-moderation, meaning, the members moderate by calling out the violators. And, there is no rule that says members have to wait around silently for an assigned moderator to take action. My post was just as valid as when I've called out cop-bashers and admonished them for cop-bashing.

Simply put, you sir, are in violation of the rules. Your status as moderator has nothing to do with it, unless you try to make it an issue. And, the only reason you would say that is to somehow minimize or reduce the violation by claiming some privilege as a moderator.

Simply put, a knife thread belongs in the Social Lounge.

Citizen said:

This is very curious. I didn't challenge the moderation. You are the one who made it about moderation. I pointed out that the thread was off-topic and in violation of the plain language of the rules. I am sorry if the violator happens to also be a moderator, but just because you are a moderator does not make every comment or post of yours moderation-related.

In any event, the thread is clearly, undeniably, facially off-topic. This forum has a long history of self-moderation, meaning, the members moderate by calling out the violators. And, there is no rule that says members have to wait around silently for an assigned moderator to take action. My post was just as valid as when I've called out cop-bashers and admonished them for cop-bashing.

Simply put, you sir, are in violation of the rules. Your status as moderator has nothing to do with it, unless you try to make it an issue. And, the only reason you would say that is to somehow minimize or reduce the violation by claiming some privilege as a moderator.

Simply put, a knife thread belongs in the Social Lounge.

Click to expand...

A thread or post is decidely not off-topic following a called decision to the contrary.

Self-moderation is a good thing, but not to the degree that a non-member of the Administration may presume authority not granted.

Under other circumstances I might ask you to cite where I am in violation of the rules, sir.

The rules are routinely not applied when they most likely should be.....this is good. Moderation is typically done only when egregious instances are manifest. Also, rules are some times invoked where they should not be.....bad, sometimes. I don't own this bar, and the bartender can kick anyone out anytime they want to, even when the owner ain't behind the bar.

IMHO, the knife story is stretching the RKBAs justification given the mission statement of OCDO. But, my HO don't count for nuthin.

OC for ME said:

The rules are routinely not applied when they most likely should be.....this is good. Moderation is typically done only when egregious instances are manifest. Also, rules are some times invoked where they should not be.....bad, sometimes. I don't own this bar, and the bartender can kick anyone out anytime they want to, even when the owner ain't behind the bar.

IMHO, the knife story is stretching the RKBAs justification given the mission statement of OCDO. But, my HO don't count for nuthin.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there Your opinion does count...and is heard. It just doesn't automatically change things.

Your analogy about the bartender and absentee owner is not w/o merit - though they do communicate after closing and their judgement is reflected.