A question.

[tundramanq]

*** Chas As an aspect if this is currenty a hot topic, I find it really hard to stay "clinical" writing about it's associated but unrelated topics.
I would suggest the rule issue be tabled for now until the issue in the US cools off.
As a chicken that has layed a lot of eggs, and had to eat a few of them, keeping the status quo will probably keep me from a case of hoof in mouth.

One thing we all share is we are all human.

[TheOfficialBren]

Tobus, +100!!!

Father Bill, forgiven and forgotten. Nobody's perfect.

Chuck, amusing annecdote about your dog's personality.

Chas, EXCELLENT points, too.

PodKiDo, excellent post and a great point raised. I love that last sentence.

[Dale Seago]

In short, Rule #11 wouldn't need to exist if Rule #5 were enforced properly. And while I do understand the reluctance to drop Rule #11 across the entire forum, I would hope that some might see the benefit of allowing a specialty sub-forum or member group discussion area where Rule #11 could be waived. Whether you folks realise it or not, this is a very significant area of kilt-wearing for many of us, which this board has decided to snub and ignore. The fact that we have lost members over the issue, or that people are having to go elsewhere to discuss it, should be a sign that it's relevant to some of us. Rule #11 sends a message to current and prospective members that this forum is not friendly to people who carry weapons. Its very existence is a political message, even if it's not intended that way.

Having a dedicated area to discuss these issues where it's understood that all topics within are "pro-weaponry" seems like a good compromise, to accommodate the very significant number of us who do want to discuss it. It would still have the stipulation that any weapons discussion should be in kilt-context, since the kilt is the focus of this board. No threads about how to tweak accuracy on your 1911, or which AR-15 is the best, or what's the best skinning knife for hogs. Just topics about weapons as they relate to the kilt. Either historic Highland/Scottish weaponry, or modern weaponry when worn with the kilt or used whilst kilted.

I've been able to live with the current rules so far, and I certainly won't leave if nothing changes; but I really like the way you've expressed this.

[O'Searcaigh]

I have been following this thread but have until now kept out of it because it really isn’t something I usually care all that much about -- weapons, that is. I do however care a great deal about good rules, laws, and civil discourse and behavior. It seems to me that this whole issue stems from the extremely vague nature of Rule 11 itself which states: “…we must insist that there will be no discussion, posting or photos of, weapons. (We define 'weapon' as anything that is used to inflict damage or harm to living beings. Weapons shown as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or shown as components of a prescribed uniform, may be exempt as long as the discussion does not become about the weapon itself or its use.)"

Saying that a 'weapon' [is] anything that is used to inflict damage or harm to living beings” could potentially include almost anything and everything, especially depending upon how broadly one also understood the notion of “harm.” Even a walking stick, sporran or fly plaid (to name but a few) could be “used to inflict damage or harm” if one were to be hit by the one or smothered or strangled by the other. Some might even say that words themselves could be “used to inflict damage or harm” which is why we have laws against libel and slander. Given the extreme vagueness of this rule, it is not surprising that its enforcement is open to caprice and inconsistency. Some simple rewording -- for example substituting the word “designed” for the word “used” -- would help clarify the issue at least somewhat even if it would not (as I suspect it would not) end the debate of whether a sgain is or is not a weapon. [It seems to me that some are and some aren’t; I own one which certainly could be used as a weapon (because it is sharp enough) and another which wouldn’t cut butter and is strictly an ornament of dress.] Similar distinctions could be made for other items as well. For example, I also own a cap and ball period pistol (as seen stuffed in kilt belts in many an old picture) which is useless as a firearm; I also own a modern pistol which is quite potentially deadly but not particularly related to the “traditional wearing of the kilt” -- unless …. ?

The issue isn’t the topic whether it is “weapons,” whisky or tobacco (which also “inflict harm“) but rather how it is presented and for what purpose. For example, it absolutely does seem to me that a discussion about the effectiveness of anything used as a “weapon” (that is, with the intent of inflicting harm) whether of the blade, firearm, textile or verbal variety, is inappropriate in this forum. However, whether the mere mention, discussion, posting or photo containing something that someone might construe as a “weapon” (as Rule 11 prohibits) is not so clearly beyond the relevant interests of this forum -- as the “disclaimer” at the end of the Rule seems to acknowledge.

I think the moderators of this forum do an outstanding job given the rules with which they have to work and I commend them for their service in performing a difficult and important task. A better formulation of the rules and their specific intent might go a long way toward avoiding the otherwise inevitable inconsistencies that come from the impossible task of trying to enforce rules that are so ambiguous and vague. The rules are the moderators tools -- and the guides for we who wish to be good forum participants. If they aren’t good, we won’t know how to be!

[flairball]

I've followed this thread, and have been surprised that no one has made mention of the "weapon" beneath their kilt.

I'm with Tobius on this one; make a sub-forum where weapons can be discussed. I would love to see someone in a kilt displaying their Mackay Brown 12 bore double after going 100 straight at skeet.

I fail to understand how someone who wouldn't read posts in the weapons sub-forum could dictate to others that just because they don't like it, on one should, nor how a sub-forum they don't visit will change their X Marks experience.

Like Vegas, what happens in the weapons forum should stay firmly in the weapons forum, and never spill out. Perhaps this idea could be woven into rule 5, which if enforced would see inappropriate political interjections in the weapons sub-forum, and weapons issues which spill out into the rest of the forum dealt with in the same manner.

It's a pretty simple principle. One which we all excersize daily. I don't like the food at McDonalds, so I don't eat there. I don't like the taste of tequila, so I don't drink it. I don't like the programming on OWN, so I don't watch it. People need to start taking responsibility for themselves. If you don't want to read about weapons, don't open the weapons sub forum.

See? Easy, isn't it?

[Father Bill]

Maybe easy, maybe not. There are programs that I don't watch because I don't like them. Fair enough. There are other programs which whether I watch them or not, change the flavour, mood, morality and fabric of the society in which I live, and I don't always appreciate that, whether or not I choose to watch them.

My greatest fear here, is that the discussion of weaponry even in a separate forum would inevitably and subtly change the nature of this forum which through its shockingly wonderful sense of collegiality has for the last three years helped me to keep my sanity in a time that has in some ways been personally difficult and challenging. Please note the word "inevitably." Note also that weapons have at times divided entire societies and nations. Note that so far, this has not happened at XMarks... largely because of the unfortunately contentious rule under discussion.

They say you should never talk about politics or religion. (Obviously I talk constantly about religion. I'm even paid a little bit to do so.) The problem is that weaponry is, and historically has been, political and in many sad cases, borderline religious.

Subtle concept, but I think that the thoughtful minds I know here will likely see my train of thought.

[Tobus]

Father Bill, in case I hadn't said it already, I appreciate your frankness on this subject. I also appreciate Steve's latitude in giving us the opportunity to discuss it.

I do admit, though, that I'm a bit baffled by what you mean when you say it would "subtly change the nature of this forum". As far as I can tell, it would still be a bunch of dudes who are talking about wearing kilts and sharing our thoughts and experiences in our everyday lives. But those of us who have heretofore been gagged in sharing one aspect of our kilt-wearing experience would be free to discuss it (within reasonable guidelines) in an appropriate place. What specifically do you think would happen?

As for XMarks being kept from division by Rule #11, I daresay that I disagree. We have been divided by it. You may not see it because you happen to favour the rule. But for the disenfranchised among us, the rule has been very divisive. But since we have been, as you say, "intimidated into silence" on the matter, many folks may not realise just how divisive it has been.

You mentioned religion and the "borderline religious" nature of weapons talk. Since we're on the subject of rules and enforcement, I do see a lot of religious references bandied about the forums in casual passing. People talk about wearing their kilts to church, performing marriages, and all other types of religious rites. They show religious symbols and talk about religious meaning and even quote Bible verses, even though religion is a 'taboo' subject on the forum, much for the same reasons that weapons have been. It's covered under the same Rule #5 as politics, and is supposed to be "checked at the door". Yet most people seem to have no problem with these discussions, since it's an everyday part of life for many members. So far as I can tell, it hasn't "subtly changed the nature of this forum" for people to accept that religion and kilts are compatible. When someone does happen to start a religious argument, it is shut down quickly. How would you feel if religion and religious symbols were as taboo on this board as weapons? Would you feel that the nature of this board were unfriendly to you?

[ShaunMaxwell]

Father Bill:

The reality is that weaponry is routinely discussed here, and likely has been since the inception of the forum (sgian dubhs, dirks, broadswords, Lochaber axes, etc.). Despite what Rule #11 states, it seems that only discussions of weaponry likely to end up with a thread reported as a violation are those related to, or portraying through photography, any type of firearm.

That being the case, they may as well change Rule #11 to say what it means in practice: "No discussions about firearms", rather than the comically broad prohibition of anything “used to inflict damage or harm” definition.

I'd have thought that rational adults could be trusted to keep their politics out of discussions about or photographs of historical weapons, but I suspect that the complaints about such are motivated by the political views of those complaining.

While I would appreciate the creation of a sub-forum related to historical weapons, I doubt that the sense of collegiality you've enjoyed for the last three years on this forum would be jeopardized were that to happen. I think the tone of this thread is indicative of that.

Cheers,

SM

[Zardoz]

You mentioned religion and the "borderline religious" nature of weapons talk. Since we're on the subject of rules and enforcement, I do see a lot of religious references bandied about the forums in casual passing. People talk about wearing their kilts to church, performing marriages, and all other types of religious rites. They show religious symbols and talk about religious meaning and even quote Bible verses, even though religion is a 'taboo' subject on the forum, much for the same reasons that weapons have been. It's covered under the same Rule #5 as politics, and is supposed to be "checked at the door". Yet most people seem to have no problem with these discussions, since it's an everyday part of life for many members. So far as I can tell, it hasn't "subtly changed the nature of this forum" for people to accept that religion and kilts are compatible. When someone does happen to start a religious argument, it is shut down quickly. How would you feel if religion and religious symbols were as taboo on this board as weapons? Would you feel that the nature of this board were unfriendly to you?

I know that's right ! I realize many folks on this forum are religious, honestly you cannot miss it, like Toby said we see guys wearing their kilts to church, performing or attending church weddings, showing off religious symbols and quoting Bible verses.
Well just speaking for myself, In spite of having a DD degree I'm not a religious person at all, but I don't let someone else's discussion of their faith here get me riled up enough to complain or comment.
In a similar vein, we know lots of folks have strong opinions on some things, but are civil enough not to comment. I know there are religious people on this forum that likely get pretty worked up when certain topics, like same sex unions, come up, and many tee-totalers we have here that don't see fit to comment on every thread in the pub section. There are even anti-monarchists hiding around here!
So while it's sure there are plently of guys here that may be annoyed or offended by some other people's interests it would seem for the most part they manage the restraint to not comment. Unfortunatly it seems firearms break down these inner impediment to free expression. I feel like it's largely a cultural/regional thing, you can see it in this thead; most guys in the US calling the little knife in their sock a tool, many from 'elsewhere' calling it a deadly weapon.

[Father Bill]

Father Bill, in case I hadn't said it already, I appreciate your frankness on this subject. I also appreciate Steve's latitude in giving us the opportunity to discuss it.

Thank you Tobus; it's because of mutual appreciation that we can remain friends when we disagree! I too am appreciative of the incredible respect Steve, that you have shown us as members. Thank you for that too.

I do admit, though, that I'm a bit baffled by what you mean when you say it would "subtly change the nature of this forum". As far as I can tell, it would still be a bunch of dudes who are talking about wearing kilts and sharing our thoughts and experiences in our everyday lives. But those of us who have heretofore been gagged in sharing one aspect of our kilt-wearing experience would be free to discuss it (within reasonable guidelines) in an appropriate place. What specifically do you think would happen?

Be it lillies or skunks, we change our moods when we smell something we can't even see. Similarly, the mood of any discussion is changed by the moods of the people who participate in other discussions and bring their moods with them. It's incredibly subtle, but something I've been trained for many years to notice.

As for XMarks being kept from division by Rule #11, I daresay that I disagree. We have been divided by it. You may not see it because you happen to favour the rule. But for the disenfranchised among us, the rule has been very divisive. But since we have been, as you say, "intimidated into silence" on the matter, many folks may not realise just how divisive it has been.

Oh, I see it very clearly; but I see it as (to refer back to my other offbeat comment about scents) "air freshener" that keeps us able to continue chatting without gagging. (Sorry, that's maybe more than a wee bit "goofy.") The division is between those who would change the nature of the place and those who like it as a kilt-focused forum. I for one would be pleased to see it continue to have off-shoots (can I say "shoots" here?) that are other aspects of Scottish-ness.

You mentioned religion and the "borderline religious" nature of weapons talk. Since we're on the subject of rules and enforcement, I do see a lot of religious references bandied about the forums in casual passing. People talk about wearing their kilts to church, performing marriages, and all other types of religious rites. They show religious symbols and talk about religious meaning and even quote Bible verses, even though religion is a 'taboo' subject on the forum, much for the same reasons that weapons have been. It's covered under the same Rule #5 as politics, and is supposed to be "checked at the door". Yet most people seem to have no problem with these discussions, since it's an everyday part of life for many members. So far as I can tell, it hasn't "subtly changed the nature of this forum" for people to accept that religion and kilts are compatible. When someone does happen to start a religious argument, it is shut down quickly. How would you feel if religion and religious symbols were as taboo on this board as weapons? Would you feel that the nature of this board were unfriendly to you?

Well, I'd be fine with that. It may surprise you that I'm actually uneasy about some of those quotations. They don't always fit my personal religious beliefs and my awareness is perhaps even heightened beyond most folks having for many years worked in and administered parts of a public education system where it was quite off-limits and I came to realize where and when religious interjection is quite inappropriate. It may surprise you that I still believe that it is and often defend, even with my collar on, the position of the public school system in forbidding religious discussion in the schools.

Like you and all of us here, I live in a secular world and often find myself in situations where religion is not the topic of discussion. That's fine with me, and I generally enjoy and participate without injecting theology. What is (again subtly) different is that almost all of the references here on XMarks are with regards to religious practice, not religious belief or theology. I note and celebrate the presence of Jewish and Muslim kilties here who also sometimes mention their religious practices. I'm fascinated by discussions of the historical interaction of Jews in their Scottish communities with those around them. However, were we to engage in a discussion of our different opinions on the nature of a supreme being or our duties to that being, it would be well over the line, and THAT would be inevitably divisive. We've avoided that as a group and as a community by restricting ourselves to facts, history, and practice.

In a parallel analysis, actually I'd be and am quite comfortable with pictures that show historical kilts and historical guns in the same place, but that's only my own perspective. I was not upset at the pictures which were recently removed, and thought the offense trivial and perhaps unworthy of moderation, but again, that's a personal position, not a professional one. I do frown at the discussion of specifically national legalities such as conceal and carry, and modern weaponry that is really unrelated to the topic of this forum, the kilt.

The problem there is that the discussion shifts subtly from the practice of having or using a gun to the belief (and beliefs are indeed religious!) of whether it should be carried in such a way. In the same way that it would be inappropriate to discuss theology of religion rather than practice, that begins to discuss the philosophy of gun use. Both discussions are much more divisive than history or practice. Thus... I support rule 11 although as inferred above, I could support some very minor tweaking.

Thanks Tobus, for seeking and I hope, accepting clarification of my thoughts.

Now, I just hope that my multiple quotes edited out properly.