TexasCHLforum.com

It seems that in every election year, as well as years that have a Texas legislation session, we have more people who seem to enjoy making snide and/or insulting comments without directly violating Forum Rules. I've had emails and PMs from Members complaining about this phenomenon and I wish I had an answer for the problem. Most of those comments come from Members with a rich history of doing this and there's no doubt that being able to be a jerk anonymously is a factor.

So, from this point on, anyone who wants to push the envelope and sprinkle snide comments on the Forum without going so far as to break Forum Rules will have to do so using their real names. Their screen name will be changed to their real names, but only after we have enough information to confirm their new screen name. Until then, their registration will be deactivated. So everyone has a choice -- be nice and enjoy anonymity, or be nasty and snide under your own name.

Chas.

WildBill wrote:

Jerkism, as it's sometimes called, may not be a matter of choice, it could be a genetic defect?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It seems that in every election year, as well as years that have a Texas legislation session, we have more people who seem to enjoy making snide and/or insulting comments without directly violating Forum Rules. I've had emails and PMs from Members complaining about this phenomenon and I wish I had an answer for the problem. Most of those comments come from Members with a rich history of doing this and there's no doubt that being able to be a jerk anonymously is a factor.

So, from this point on, anyone who wants to push the envelope and sprinkle snide comments on the Forum without going so far as to break Forum Rules will have to do so using their real names. Their screen name will be changed to their real names, but only after we have enough information to confirm their new screen name. Until then, their registration will be deactivated. So everyone has a choice -- be nice and enjoy anonymity, or be nasty and snide under your own name.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:... we have more people who seem to enjoy making snide and/or insulting comments without directly violating Forum Rules. ...

For all the observations about politically stupid, naive, or offensive statements made by the "OC Bomb-throwers", I've noticed even more rude, snide, insulting and offensive comments coming from a number of people who are throwing stones at the OC crowd. I've found far more anti OC comments to be disgusting than the other offensive pro OC comments.

Last I looked, the "enemy" were the gun-banning idiots out there trying to trample all of our rights. Yet the infighting and ugliness demonstrated by both extremes of the OC spectrum -- pro and anti -- are frankly disappointing.

Jumping Frog wrote: {snip}
Last I looked, the "enemy" were the gun-banning idiots out there trying to trample all of our rights. Yet the infighting and ugliness demonstrated by both extremes of the OC spectrum -- pro and anti -- are frankly disappointing.

"...united we stand, divided we fall..." Somebody said that somewhere, sometime?

Jumping Frog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:... we have more people who seem to enjoy making snide and/or insulting comments without directly violating Forum Rules. ...

For all the observations about politically stupid, naive, or offensive statements made by the "OC Bomb-throwers", I've noticed even more rude, snide, insulting and offensive comments coming from a number of people who are throwing stones at the OC crowd. I've found far more anti OC comments to be disgusting than the other offensive pro OC comments.

Last I looked, the "enemy" were the gun-banning idiots out there trying to trample all of our rights. Yet the infighting and ugliness demonstrated by both extremes of the OC spectrum -- pro and anti -- are frankly disappointing.

I agree. Let's be fair with both sides, here....

This post is just a reminder that this policy is still in effect. We just lost a member (banned) because he refused to post his childish insults and rants under his real name. (This is typical of keyboard Rambos who enjoy anonymity, but wouldn't dream of signing their real name to their posts.) Anyone who wants to join him can follow suit. We have great Members and the very few who just can't shake the OpenCarry.org/OCT/OCTC obnoxious attitude will not be tolerated.

Chas.

As guests, we should behave as expected by our host.

In any situation, public or private, good manners and civility go along way towards making all things a great deal easier.

Also, some of us don't have as quick a wit or imaginations as others and guessing our real names wouldn't be real hard.



Jeff B.

Well done Charles! Thank you. It is indeed refreshing to have an absence of those type individuals who permeate and populate other forums.

Just for clarification, Charles, if I agree to post under my real name I can be snide and obnoxious and push the envelope?? (I'm just trying to make sure I understand this before I ask for the change.)

baldeagle wrote:Just for clarification, Charles, if I agree to post under my real name I can be snide and obnoxious and push the envelope?? (I'm just trying to make sure I understand this before I ask for the change.)

And the corollary to that, since I have always used my own name, I have been passing up chances to be snide and obnoxious?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This post is just a reminder that this policy is still in effect. We just lost a member (banned) because he refused to post his childish insults and rants under his real name.

This thread is IMO ineffective without giving examples. Links please, to posts that got people banned...?

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This post is just a reminder that this policy is still in effect. We just lost a member (banned) because he refused to post his childish insults and rants under his real name.

This thread is IMO ineffective without giving examples. Links please, to posts that got people banned...?

We could start with this last actually. If people will read the Forum rules and the guidelines set for discussing OC then Mr. Cotton's post is very clear.

carlson1 wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This post is just a reminder that this policy is still in effect. We just lost a member (banned) because he refused to post his childish insults and rants under his real name.

This thread is IMO ineffective without giving examples. Links please, to posts that got people banned...?

We could start with this last actually. If people will read the Forum rules and the guidelines set for discussing OC then Mr. Cotton's post is very clear.

Good grief, I am only trying to understand. And you've linked to neither the rules nor the "guidelines set for discussing OC". How hard do you have to make this..