Is there any way to get another rule/template added to the ban request form?Something along the lines of "Political discussion pertaining to firearms regulation and control should be posted on /pol/" or similar?Especially with the changing US political climate, it definitely might help curb these threads if we could throw warning out for something like this and just add the contents of the second sticky as a reply in the first to save index real-estate.
Isn't that simply Rule 1?
>>5149The only rule listed says is "All weaponry is welcome. Military vehicles/knives/other weapons are included."Gun control are made so frequently that a new template/rule would be justified.
>>5152There's another note under the sticky about politics.
I'm adding my vote to this as well. Nearly all of the rule-breaking posts I see on /k/ are political, especially because of the USA Presidential campaign and etc.
Bumping for relevancy.I think this is as good a time as any to look back and seriously consider this change in light of the Virginia rally as well as the events surrounding Iran. On the board, if something is related to weapons it is considered weapons related. It does not matter if this happens to be gun control or other militarily related political topics. Despite the sticky stating that "Discussions about politics or current events belong on /pol/." and "Do not post threads about gun control. They belong on /pol/." these threads as well as inter thread discussion pop up constantly. The off topic template is as follows "Off-topic; all images and discussion should pertain to firearms, military vehicles, knives, realistic mil-sim games, and other weapons." I think it is quite easy to consider gun control talk related to firearms, from a technical stand point it is. I believe the actual context of this wording for the template refers to weapons themselves not the political conversation that can come with them. I think clarification would be important in multiple cases I've seen anons state that what is in the sticky is not actually what the rules are. On multiple boards there are specific rules pointing to political discussion being for /pol/ as well as current events being on /news/. A rule and BR template as simple as "Gun control, political discussion, and current events belong on /pol/ and /news/" I think this could simply be a locked warn template, and the more egregiously off topic posts be BRd with the off topic template. With this rule change it may even be possible to allow militarily relevant current events such as conflicts, wars, skirmishes etc. and provide an effective tool to remove political discussion within those threads.Sorry for the blog post.
>>7255I forgot to add, I've seen a few anons bring up the idea of a general thread strictly for gun control. I'm not sure what to make of that as I feel it just will turn into an exception to the rules, and bleed into other threads.
I want to say first that I think this is a good idea. While it'll do little to nothing to dissuade dedicated shitposters who already know that gun control and politics belong on /pol/ and don't care, it could be helpful to explicitly state to people who want to try to make constructive posts in a general sense, but may be confused. Also, it'll give anon much less ammunition to stir up resentment about board policies by screenshotting his ban text. It's actually pretty easy, in a vacuum, to make a "convincing" shitpost about how we're suppressing their pet crusade based on the lack of specificity endemic to KR1. >Wow look at this ban I got for being "off topic," my post was obviously related to guns! Mods are Soros puppets with antifa handlersWith a ban template specifically for gun control, there's very little logical wiggle room. I agree that the distinction between firearms and gun control is a sticky one, and we do actually apply a similar kind of lenience to other topics which are arguably equally tangential to weapons which we deny to gun control threads. In my eyes, the distinction is that these other topics aren't problematic in the way that /pol/posting is, but that's not just something you can tell anon.I just wish there were a way to communicate to anon in no uncertain terms that we don't actually give a shit about what political beliefs he holds, and that the reason we delete and move gun control threads has nothing to do with an institutional desire to promote or stifle any one political viewpoint or another based on merit, but that ALL politically-focused conversation belongs on /pol/, just because we have a board for it where it is topical.In today's world there's obviously a trend to try to see everything through a political lens. While I don't think it's our job to change that, I do think it's my job as a janny to try to make sure it doesn't overwhelm my board. To this end, I think a new rule would help /k/.
I'd definitely support that sort of ban request. I'm also wondering if /k/ could use some sort of 'no template threads' ban request as well, there's been a lot of samey bait threads recently that aren't quite spam but also aren't quite off-topic.
I'm wondering if /k/ could benefit from a "Talk about guns, not other posters" WR/BR template. Lately it seems like several of the generals are more focused on discussing/harassing thread personalities/tripfags than the actual general topic, more so than usual I should add.
>>8054that's all boards all the time. just file it under off-topic
I want to ask, why couldn't gun control specifically be a subject for /k/?It can attract a lot offtopic shit, and that should be policed (harshly), but it seems like a subject which would be critically important to the subject of the board. Isn't the subject of automobile regulations relevant for boards like /o/, and wouldn't the subject of regulation and censorship be relevant to boards such as /tv/ and /v/?I think that for the added offtopic shitposting, it would be worth it for how appreciated it would be by the userbase of the board.
>>8251/k/ is a magical place due to the camaraderie you can have by it being (mostly) apolitical. The board hasn't been untouched by politicization of the site, but if you open that can of worms up the board's quality is going to go right into the dumpster with a bunch of shit flinging about american politics that all of the rest of the board's international userbase will have to sift through. Also, many of the posters are gun owners. They (including myself) want to talk about owning guns. They don't want to have people coming in telling them they need to give up their guns.
>>8258I've come back to this, I get what you're saying, but at the same time, this is such an INCREDIBLY critical interest to the subject of the board that I think it's entirely unfair to the userbase that the subject cannot be actually be discussed at all.Not being able to discuss it in any capacity on /k/ is a PROBLEM, and covering it under a blanket ban for all politics is a band-aid solution that just does not work. Large parts of /k/'s userbase do not have any interest in using /pol/ to discuss this kind of subject matter, for many, many users, it will simply not happen.There MUST be a way to somehow make SOME room on /k/ on the subject of informing about upcoming and proposed law and policy changes about the very subject matter of the board itself. To suggest otherwise is to say that the board should intentionally avoid trying to preserve its own core interests, which would be unthinkable anywhere else on 4chan.You would have to contend with people bitching about the jews, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the women, the communists, the nazis, the illuminati, how my chad ideology is better than your cuck ideology, etc, etc, dicks in my ass, These are already a problem which is already to be dealt with anyway.The current policy is not acceptable, and a different approach and solution must be found somehow, even if that solution is something as awkward and retarded as a rigidly moderated general thread which a few us have to babysit to keep it in check. People need to be able to know and discuss what changes are coming up in which jurisdictions and what options there are regarding it, as well as how it can affect them. This is even larger than for just the American userbase, there are countries elsewhere in the world where these kinds of rights aren't as well defended, where entire fields regarding weapons and shooting sports can be eroded almost over night. To me, we are failing that camaraderie by not looking out for each other like this.
>>8851I'm a relatively infrequent user of /k/ but I do want to add this data point: in the odd discussion about melee weapons, discussion about municipal /local laws on brandishing are discussed civilly
/k/ has country-specific threads, which cannot be expected to never discuss changes to firearms related laws. /meg/ is a permanent /k/ fixture at this point even if it's also strictly off-topic. Both are relatively civil and /k/ is the most suitable place for said threads imo, so enacting stricter off-topic enforcement may run into difficulties. Food for thought.
>>8853To echo this, /cangen/ goes on about Canadian firearm laws, but the only saving grace is that they act as little containment threads. Same as /arg/. Probably 75% of reports stem from either /cangen/ or /arg/, and I already know that going in to the queue. >>8851I'd rather have gun policy threads than outright /pol/ threads on the Ukraine war in the dozen on a daily basis. But, if that happens, gun policy conversations have the capacity to get out of hand super quickly, even more so than comparatively nuanced thread topics.
>>8853I think threads like those can remain civil even if fedposting and complaining about gays/trannies gets cleaned up.>>8855It can absolutely get out of hand, which is perhaps why centering it in one thread at a time which gets babysat as one approach.Not a great approach, it'd probably foster circlejerking, but it would be a place to focus it and try to keep it civil.
