Nope I got my own. Headed out to one now!
Reminder on Forum Rules
- Thread starter robby denning
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Buy this man a beer, Diet Coke, whatever he drinks! LOL
OP
OP
I’ll send you a PM.
Everyone should strive to be genuine, at least in my opinion.
There’s a difference between being genuine and being a jack ass, the Internet is full of the latter.
Hoodie
WKR
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. But I'm pretty sure only false statements of fact can be considered slander/libel.
My super hot take:
This is supposed to be a site to discuss gear. Gear is a product. There have been several instances where individuals (influencers) who stand to profit from the sale of hunting products have been called out for legal violations on this site. If they weren't called out, I would not have known about the incidents in question.
I would prefer not to support these individuals financially. I'm sure at least some percentage of the users on this site feel the same way.
How is it okay for us to discuss the anti-2A leanings or conservation donations of a company, but not game law violations? It's the same thing. These are reasons I might be disinclined to hand over money to an individual/company. If anything I care more about violations, because they are a threat to the public perception of hunting.
The MuleyFreak bino harness looks cool. I won't be buying one. As for Staton, I think elk themed creatine is stupid anyway, and no one needs to worry about how many turkish get ups they can do if they're gonna ride a dirtbike.
I totally understand the moderator stance here. But this just doesn't seem any less negative or relevant than any other threads bashing a company. If Elkshape wasn't hawking a product, it wouldn't matter as much. If he didn't want the scrutiny, he could've easily avoided it.
My super hot take:
This is supposed to be a site to discuss gear. Gear is a product. There have been several instances where individuals (influencers) who stand to profit from the sale of hunting products have been called out for legal violations on this site. If they weren't called out, I would not have known about the incidents in question.
I would prefer not to support these individuals financially. I'm sure at least some percentage of the users on this site feel the same way.
How is it okay for us to discuss the anti-2A leanings or conservation donations of a company, but not game law violations? It's the same thing. These are reasons I might be disinclined to hand over money to an individual/company. If anything I care more about violations, because they are a threat to the public perception of hunting.
The MuleyFreak bino harness looks cool. I won't be buying one. As for Staton, I think elk themed creatine is stupid anyway, and no one needs to worry about how many turkish get ups they can do if they're gonna ride a dirtbike.
I totally understand the moderator stance here. But this just doesn't seem any less negative or relevant than any other threads bashing a company. If Elkshape wasn't hawking a product, it wouldn't matter as much. If he didn't want the scrutiny, he could've easily avoided it.
woods89
WKR
Some good points. I also understand the frustration the mods have with this stuff, and maybe I've contributed at times. I too think applying these principles fairly across the board may be a little complicated at times.
Will it be out of line to comment on Amazon's corporate stances? What about Patagonia? Yvon Chouinard has certainly taken a beating a few times on this site, and perhaps justifiably. Is that slander?
Like a guy in this thread said, probably the best way is just to stay out of the General Discussion section.
Last edited:
Love this site and get a lot of value from it. I appreciate the latitude I’ve seen here for people to be pretty rough on some site sponsors. A lot of sites won’t allow any remotely negative thing to be said about a sponsor. I respect and appreciate that is generally accepted here. Having said that, I think you guys got this one wrong. I saw nearly every post on that thread before it was removed. Didn’t seem out of hand IMO. I could understand locking the thread after a while. Seemed heavy handed to just remove it.
You guys do a fantastic job moderating this site. It’s one of the reasons I like being here. And even though I disagree with this one particular decision, I recognize it’s an extremely difficult and largely no-win situation. You will never make everyone happy all the time.
You guys do a fantastic job moderating this site. It’s one of the reasons I like being here. And even though I disagree with this one particular decision, I recognize it’s an extremely difficult and largely no-win situation. You will never make everyone happy all the time.
JS.Fletch5
WKR
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
- Messages
- 581
I think if you put yourself out there as an influencer or whatever you want to call it, you should accept the fact that you’ll be scrutinized more heavily because you are actively putting yourself out to a wide audience of people.
It’s the cost of being well-known. Especially since D*n st*ton is tied to several companies and puts an insane amount of effort into growing a digital presence, he’s inviting more scrutiny into what he does.
I think suppressing this is somewhat unfair given the nature of his work and his choice to become an “influencer”.
It’s the cost of being well-known. Especially since D*n st*ton is tied to several companies and puts an insane amount of effort into growing a digital presence, he’s inviting more scrutiny into what he does.
I think suppressing this is somewhat unfair given the nature of his work and his choice to become an “influencer”.
CAelk
FNG
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
- Messages
- 18
Understood!!
I understand the mods position, but why not just can the posters who can’t follow the board’s existing rules?
Even in this discussion about censorship, there’s been some back and forth between members that are juvenile and unnecessary.
Ryan says he preferred the size of membership when it was smaller and more focused (or something that to that extent), so why not dump the guys who don’t understand how to post within the guidelines of what Rokslide has determined they want to allow?
I can name several members off the top of my head that I‘ve never seen post a gear review or hunt recap, but like clockwork appear whenever there’s a topic that allows them to post the same old opinions and go through their same routine over and over until the discussion is locked.
Dump those guys, and let the rest of the members who can respect a differing opinion, or can refrain from calling someone a derogatory name, or frequent this site not just to argue, continue to discuss topics that are relevant to the members on here.
This whole thing reminds me of gun control… Instead of enforcing the rules that already exist and dealing with the individuals who are really the issue, we get censorship.
In my opinion there‘s very little that can be discussed on here that won’t require moderation unless the mods just start clipping posters who are the root of the issue.
Even in this discussion about censorship, there’s been some back and forth between members that are juvenile and unnecessary.
Ryan says he preferred the size of membership when it was smaller and more focused (or something that to that extent), so why not dump the guys who don’t understand how to post within the guidelines of what Rokslide has determined they want to allow?
I can name several members off the top of my head that I‘ve never seen post a gear review or hunt recap, but like clockwork appear whenever there’s a topic that allows them to post the same old opinions and go through their same routine over and over until the discussion is locked.
Dump those guys, and let the rest of the members who can respect a differing opinion, or can refrain from calling someone a derogatory name, or frequent this site not just to argue, continue to discuss topics that are relevant to the members on here.
This whole thing reminds me of gun control… Instead of enforcing the rules that already exist and dealing with the individuals who are really the issue, we get censorship.
In my opinion there‘s very little that can be discussed on here that won’t require moderation unless the mods just start clipping posters who are the root of the issue.
5MilesBack
"DADDY"
You know.......it's quite possible to be a genuine jackass, on the internet.......and in person.
It's libel when it's written. Slander is spoken and treated less seriously.
deerhunt1988
WKR
Why not let the members vote on it? And like another poster mentioned, just ban the ones who are constantly a problem.
OP
OP
Yeah, but that was just the girl that sold it to us. Said she knew the supermodel.
OP
OP
In a way, the members are voting on it, most of them want to go this direction. I’ve heard from a lot of people the last couple days.
- Status
Similar threads
Featured Video
Latest Articles
- Book: Winning with the Wild Life
- Walking Pod Review
- Sitka Ambient 100 Vest Review
- Breaking 200: Against the Odds
- TT#51 Jeremy Dugger on Killing Coyotes and Saving Deer
- Sitka HyperDown Jacket and Pant
- Did Colorado Bucks Survive the 5-year Plan?
- Western States Winter Update
- TT#50 HOWL for Wildlife on the Offensive
- Fawn to Doe Ratios: Predicting Your Mule Deer Future