Ownership Change Notice

[quychang]

You know, if it does turn out to be something anti gun, even if we can't duplicate the knowledge base that exists here, we very well could pick up as a group and create our own new forum. Or talk to UGE and see if something along these lines could be offered over there as a side bar to the current sales forum.

Mel

[jfwright1955]

[RustyShackleford]

I love the smell of Conspiracy in the Morning

[quychang]

I love the smell of Conspiracy in the Morning

Is it conspiracy, or situational awareness? I can't see a thing wrong with having a backup plan. Can you?

Mel

[Flopian]

While I have my share of disagreements with the way OutdoorForums runs their business and over-commercializes some forums, I would have to say that my impression of them is very much pro-gun (or they're at least willing to let us remain pro-gun while they profit). In my experience, they're also quite tolerant of existing "black eyes" and often just let them continue as-is (like the horrendously racist, bigoted, politically- and religiously-charged, over-the-top "Asylum" forum over at Marlin-Owners).

My biggest complaint is that, more often than not, rules are put into place that do not allow outside links to vendors that are not on the "supporting vendors" list. Additionally, links to any type of auction or classified is nearly always banned. So trying to give someone a heads-up about a good deal on ammunition, reloading components, firearms accessories, a hard-to-find firearm, etc. in any way that includes a link (or sometimes just the name of the company) often results in:
A) A warning about breaking the rules. (And I have seen it eventually result in a ban for repeat offenders.)
B) The post being deleted.
And/or,
C) A Moderator breathing down your neck while chastising you like they're talking to a 3 year-old.

I don't know that I've seen it with the OutdoorForums sites, but I've been seeing a rather irritating trend over the last 12-18 months, that I really hope doesn't come to pass here. Forums that are bought out and commercialized are, more and more often, having rules put in places that completely prohibit "speaking ill" of any brand or company - especially supporting vendors - even if you have proof of your claims.

So... If, for example, you buy an aftermarket "match" barrel for your Springfield XD, and have the misfortune of finding out that it's a complete piece of crap and the company's customer service is a sham, you can't say much about it. You're warned, punished, or even banned for going much further than saying something to the effect of: "I bought a "match" barrel for my XD. It sucked."

Though not quite as much of an issue on gun forums, it has had a HUGE impact on hot-rodding and car building forum, where there are 900 different options for the same part, so people often ask for advice on which one actually work, which ones are crap, and which ones are truly awesome. At best, you can only offer advice on which ones work and might be able to say, "There are two good ones on the market. The other 8 are no good." But you can't say anything like, "The AMD tail panel is so warped and dimensionally incorrect that you'll have to cut it in 13 places to make it fit. Buy the Dynacorn piece, instead."



Hopefully things continue without issue, or actually improve in some manner.
I would hate to see another forum get killed by the transition, like the Utah Wildlife forums did a 4-5 years back. (Mandatory subscriptions to the company's two dozen newsletters. Too many ads too quickly. Too many new rules. And too many restrictions on discussions -- like not being able to discuss wildlife laws on a wildlife forum!! ) Within 3 months of being bought out, forum activity was down over 80%, new member registration was non-existent, and 90% of the continuing discussions were in the 'General Forum' in regards to ATVs and trucks. Even as a long-time moderator, I abandoned that sinking ship and haven't looked back.)

[jfwright1955]

It would strike me that after reading some of the chatter in this thread the new admin's and/or mod's would wish to proactively join the conversation and provide at least a little insight into the intent of the new owners regarding the site. While I don't think anyone expects a mission statement or 5-year vision, something more than "hi, we're the new admin's" might be appropriate.

Of course, the idea of us being part of some kind of social experiment to see how long it takes us to conjure discontent and abandon ship is always an intriguing and fascinating alternative.

[quychang]

Flopian, I don't think our concerns are based on past management practices, rather what may happen under new ownership. No one is seriously talking about jumping ship at this point, we're just looking at a worst case scenario, and if it happens, what can we do about it. As forum users the answer is nothing. But that doesn't mean that we can't move the whole group to a new forum, start over and go on as if nothing has happened. While it's true that there is a huge knowledge base here from past posts, in reality if someone has a question, rather than searching the forum, they pop in and ask. Hence we revisit the same topics all the time anyway. It might actually benefit us to start over and rebuild the knowledge base. Perhaps even do some research on forum management software that might be somewhat more user friendly for PM's and searching.

I'm just throwing out ideas, but wouldn't it be nice sometimes to have real time chat capability where you notice someone like Snurd online and have a quick question about Glocks, or the training pistols he can get, and you could just pop him a quick instant message and deal with it without creating public discussion? I'm not saying we should be facebook for heavens sake, but personally I kind of miss the old time chat boards where there were options to post, or just enter into private or public chat and have real time conversations.

I have absolutely no idea if such software currently exists, but I'm not bad with google and I'm sure there are others here that are better than I am. If it's out there, and the cost isn't outrageous, I'd surely be willing to pitch in on the purchase. Perhaps even just buy it outright and donate it to the board if the price isn't too steep.

Again, no one is panicking, nor are we talking seriously about jumping ship We are just looking for options should this one not be viable. I certainly hope that it's just speculation and we're thinking about something that doesn't matter. Truth be told, this board was far more active 2 years ago when I joined than it is now days. I think it's picking up some, but it's taking an effort by a few of us to post more often to stimulate conversations. Frankly that's why you see my name so often these days. Oh, I nearly always have an opinion on a topic, but was being pretty lax about posting for a long time. Even now you're more likely to see me posting in chit chat or open forums. I still love guns, but I'm at a low period in how much and how often I shoot. And I haven't made a gun deal, or bought anything new since last summer. So unless someone asks about something I own, have owned, or have researched, I'm generally mute in those threads. I still read them all, and occasionally throw in a comment, but we need to do something to bring life back into the forum. I'm hoping new management will do that, and not what we fear. I have a pretty strong feeling that while time was definitely an issue for Paul, he also in part saw what was happening and wanted to try to give it a boost.

Mel

[Flopian]

Flopian, I don't think our concerns are based on past management practices, rather what may happen under new ownership. No one is seriously talking about jumping ship at this point (...)

Again, no one is panicking, nor are we talking seriously about jumping ship (...)

I understood that, and did not intend for my statements to be taken as any kind of suggestion - or even a representation of my opinion.

My statement about jumping ship was in reference to the context in which it was found: a short anecdote about a forum that went down hill after being commercialized too quickly and too forcefully.

I don't believe that will be the case here.


At this point, everything is conjecture and I was adding some of my own thoughts.

[quychang]

Flopian, I don't think our concerns are based on past management practices, rather what may happen under new ownership. No one is seriously talking about jumping ship at this point (...)

Again, no one is panicking, nor are we talking seriously about jumping ship (...)

I understood that, and did not intend for my statements to be taken as any kind of suggestion - or even a representation of my opinion.

My statement about jumping ship was in reference to the context in which it was found: a short anecdote about a forum that went down hill after being commercialized too quickly and too forcefully.

I don't believe that will be the case here.


At this point, everything is conjecture and I was adding some of my own thoughts.

Which is great, and exactly what we're doing here. I really didn't take your comment wrong, it just elicited some additional thinking on my part, not so much conjecture, but rambling about what I might like to see if we were given free reign to start a new community. I very honestly hope that you are correct and that things remain viable here. Like jf, I would hope that the new moderators would weigh in with some sort of reassuring comment at this point.

Mel