A reminder about posting guidelines

[afishinado]

Posting Guidelines and Site Policy

Paflyfish is here to help foster a shared interest in expanding our knowledge, experience and most importantly our enjoyment for fly fishing in Pennsylvania region. Humor, ideas, debate, and opinions are encouraged. Deliberate insults, personal attacks, and lewd comments are not welcome for any reason.

An example of this policy can be explained as it relates to political discussions. Where political issues are relevant to fly fishing or conservation, they may be discussed, but personal attacks directed toward public figures, government personnel, political parties or political groups should be avoided. Criticism of official, parties or groups is not off limits, but a fine line exists between criticism and attack, so users are cautioned to temper their remarks to avoid bitter argument, which may result in bad feelings among participants and in extreme cases, such threads or individual posts being deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[greenlander]

afishinado wrote:
Posting Guidelines and Site Policy

Where political issues are relevant to fly fishing or conservation, they may be discussed, but personal attacks directed toward public figures, government personnel, political parties or political groups should be avoided. Criticism of official, parties or groups is not off limits, but a fine line exists between criticism and attack, so users are cautioned to temper their remarks to avoid bitter argument, which may result in bad feelings among participants and in extreme cases, such threads or individual posts being deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

With all due respect, the flaw to this policy seems to be the concept of deleting entire threads because certain forum members decide to post inappropriate messages on said thread.

The impetus for this reminder, no doubt, is a wholly relevant thread I originated earlier -- linking to an article I recently published detailing the myriad actions taken by the current administration that serve to negatively impact our fishing, hunting and outdoor heritages.

I cannot think of material more relevant to a group of anglers, most of which would certainly proclaim themselves to be conservationists, defenders of the natural world and so on.

And so I'll repost this material again, this time in the conservation forum, where it will hopefully be met by more civil discussion.

However, should any of the forum members decide to violate the policies of the board again, I would encourage the moderators to address the individual infractions, rather than deprive the other forum members of an important discussion/resource.

 

[Baron]

Well I have to ask that it not be posted again as it is of a divisive nature....Things are mentioned that are contentious to my beliefs. Happy to avoid that whole mess and talk fishing.

 

[UncleShorty]

Why would you not want to learn what YOUR GOVERNMENT is doing to degrade our air, water, land and eco system?

We have a duty to pass this earth on to the next generation in as good a shape, or better, than when it was passed on to us.

Maybe greenlander's post made you politically uncomfortable.

But no progress has ever been made by comfortable people.

Let greenlander make his post on the Conservation page.

 

[DaveKile]

We have been a fly fishing site for 25 years. The policies are pretty clear and have been this way for over five years regarding politics. There is very little civility when it comes to people's opinions and as it comes to political issues.

If you want to discuss fly fishing you are all welcome. Political issues are not a fit for the style we want to have, engage and moderate on this site. There are plenty of other places that focus on those topics. We are not that place.

We take action of removing posts and threads that do not follow the guidelines.

 

[greenlander]

Dave,

afish said above:

“ Where political issues are relevant to fly fishing or conservation, they may be discussed ...”

Is that an accurate reflection of the policy, or no?

If it is, then I fail to see the grounds for removal of the post — as the subject matter is directly related to fly fishing. The article in question, in fact, was crafted specifically based on its relevance to fly fishing.

 

[troutbert]

If the actual policy is No Political Posts, then that should be stated in the guidelines.

Right now the guidelines say that political posts are allowed. So I don't think the poster can be faulted for his post.

And I thought the article was very well researched, very informative, factual material.

But if you really want no politics on this website, you could use language something like this:

"Political posts are prohibited."

That's very simple and very clear.

 

[Dave_W]

I pulled Greenlander's post earlier today because it clearly mentioned the President's name. This is a violation of our policy forbidding political debates. See Dkile in post 5 above.

As if we need any reminders... this is an election year and our national civic discourse has become increasingly toxic. We made the decision a few years ago to forbid political discussions in our off topic forums due to the increasing difficulty of moderating such discussions. Moreover, such political threads were pitting us against each other and undermining the camaraderie and good fellowship we enjoy as anglers and friends.

Of course we can all agree that political issues have conservation and fisheries management consequences. We care about these issues. However, going forward, stick to the details of these issues and opt to avoid the political opinion.

We're a fly fishing site. If you're unable to discuss conservation and fisheries without political commentary, please place your editorials on another website.

The moderator staff retains the right to use our judgement in enforcing these policies and discussions and will continue to do so. We appreciate your cooperation.

 

[UncleShorty]

ALL the posts on this forum are political in one way or another.

Definition of politics: "relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group... "

Snakeheads? Some like 'em, some don't.
Summer trout fishing? Some like it some don't.
Dry flies vs. wet flies. Nymphs vs. Streamers. 4 wt vs. 5 wt.

It's ALL politics.

And so is a clean environment vs. a polluted environment.

If the intention of the board is to, according to dkile, "discuss flyfishing" I don't see how banning topics that are germane furthers our sport.

Certainly there should be standards of conduct and relevancy. People who enjoy fly fishing can and should express strong opinions.

But banning entire posts, certainly in this instance, is a disservice to the members here and to fly fishing.

 

[greenlander]

Along the lines of what UncleShorty is saying, I have to admit the interpretation of what is and isn't political seems fairly arbitrary. The content in question makes no political endorsement and has no vote message. It does analyze the policies and actions of a political administration in regards to how they affect fisheries, wildlife, public lands and so on, however.

So is that to say that policy discussions are off limits? That we can't discuss the importance of the repeal of the Clean Water Rule? Or the Stream Protection Rule? Or Pebble Mine? Policies that affect Atlantic coast fisheries? Or just that when we do, we must not acknowledge the source of any of these issues?

So, while I respect and understand Dave_W's points, again the redline seems fairly arbitrary.

Specifically, re: Dave's comment:

"If you're unable to discuss conservation and fisheries without political commentary, please place your editorials on another website."

I think that if we are to take the idea of discussing conservation and fisheries even remotely seriously, we must acknowledge that there are virtually no conservation and/or fisheries discussions, save for perhaps those at the single creek or TU chapter level that can be had without wading into politics. And that's because it doesn't matter whether you're talking about permitting for industrial projects that affect waterways, fish and game departments, state and municipal funding for restoration projects, hatchery issues, regulations and their impact on conservation, etc ... it's all politically tied.

In any event, I haven't been an active forum member in quite a long time, so I'll not pretend I have significant skin in the game. I will say that I'd caution against letting the intemperate behavior of a handful of forum members—who from what I'm reading, are unable to engage in civil discussion—stifle informative, important discussions that are incredibly germane to the well-being of the wild places that form the touchstone of our sport.

Perhaps it should be considered that it is not the content in question that is "undermining the camaraderie and good fellowship we enjoy as anglers and friends," but those members unable to engage in civil discussion.

That said, it is your community, and so I'll most certainly respect the wishes of the moderators and withdraw from further discussion on the matter.

 

[Acristickid]

It’s obvious some people don’t have enough leaves to rake.

 

[DaveKile]

We did update and stop politics in the Off Water Forum back in 2016. The general guidelines were updated in 2016 with the statement -

"Paflyfish is here to help foster a shared interest in expanding our knowledge, experience, and most importantly our enjoyment for fly fishing in the Pennsylvania region. Humor, ideas, debate, and opinions are encouraged. Deliberate insults, personal attacks, and lewd comments are not welcome for any reason.

An example of this policy can be explained as it relates to political discussions. Where political issues are relevant to fly fishing or conservation, they may be discussed, but personal attacks directed toward public figures, government personnel, political parties or political groups should be avoided. Criticism of officials, parties or groups is not off-limits, but a fine line exists between criticism and attack, so users are cautioned to temper their remarks to avoid bitter argument, which may result in bad feelings among participants and in extreme cases, such threads or individual posts being deleted. Thank you for your understanding."

The reason this was done was the vast majority of political posts degenerated into personal attacks, then warnings and people were tossed from the site. This all sounds fun for some people, but I have a lot better things to do than let some people use this site as your personal political platform to rant and then we have to mop up after the sh!t-show.

I’m not doing it. Period!

Moderating is a subjective activity. My role as a webmaster is to be impartial and open-minded. I’m not taking a side, I’m just not allowing it.

This is the subject line of the thread in question.
Trump's record on clean water, wildlife and public lands is worse than you think

The subject line is not objective it is an inflammatory political opinion. First using Trump in any subject is gonna get people riled up. The worse than you think invokes polarization and is an attack.

Right away I got a couple of private messages asking me to remove the thread. There were over 15 posts in the thread, many asking for the removal of the thread because it would result in arguments. I agree.

The policy will not change going forward into 2021 whoever is in office.

This is a fly fishing site.

 

[BradFromPotter]

dkile wrote:
We did update and stop politics in the Off Water Forum back in 2016. The general guidelines were updated in 2016 with the statement -

"Paflyfish is here to help foster a shared interest in expanding our knowledge, experience, and most importantly our enjoyment for fly fishing in the Pennsylvania region. Humor, ideas, debate, and opinions are encouraged. Deliberate insults, personal attacks, and lewd comments are not welcome for any reason.

An example of this policy can be explained as it relates to political discussions. Where political issues are relevant to fly fishing or conservation, they may be discussed, but personal attacks directed toward public figures, government personnel, political parties or political groups should be avoided. Criticism of officials, parties or groups is not off-limits, but a fine line exists between criticism and attack, so users are cautioned to temper their remarks to avoid bitter argument, which may result in bad feelings among participants and in extreme cases, such threads or individual posts being deleted. Thank you for your understanding."

The reason this was done was the vast majority of political posts degenerated into personal attacks, then warnings and people were tossed from the site. This all sounds fun for some people, but I have a lot better things to do than let some people use this site as your personal political platform to rant and then we have to mop up after the sh!t-show.

I’m not doing it. Period!

Moderating is a subjective activity. My role as a webmaster is to be impartial and open-minded. I’m not taking aside, I’m just not allowing it.

This is the subject line of the thread in question.
Trump's record on clean water, wildlife and public lands is worse than you think

The subject line is not objective it is an inflammatory political opinion. First using Trump in any subject is gonna get people riled up. The worse than you think invokes polarization and is an attack.

Right away I got a couple of private messages asking me to remove the thread. There were over 15 posts in the thread, many asking for the removal of the thread because it would result in arguments. I agree.

The policy will not change going forward into 2021 whoever is in office.

This is a fly fishing site.

Thank you Dave.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

dkile wrote:
Criticism of officials, parties or groups is not off-limits, but a fine line exists between criticism and attack, so users are cautioned to temper their remarks to avoid bitter argument, which may result in bad feelings among participants and in extreme cases, such threads or individual posts being deleted. Thank you for your understanding."

... I have a lot better things to do than let some people use this site as your personal political platform to rant and then we have to mop up after the sh!t-show.

I’m not doing it. Period!

Moderating is a subjective activity. My role as a webmaster is to be impartial and open-minded. I’m not taking aside, I’m just not allowing it.

Kudos! I applaud your conviction.

dkile wrote:
This is the subject line of the thread in question.
Trump's record on clean water, wildlife and public lands is worse than you think

The subject line is not objective it is an inflammatory political opinion.

I agree. Perhaps we should more carefully word our titles and vet our sources. The real dilemma is there seems to be little in the way of impartial information in politics. Listing POTUS's actions as they relate to the environment without theoretical impacts (leave the reader to determine this) may be ok. Who is to decide what is objective info v. subjective. IDK. Slippery slope.

In any case, We are all here thanks to the time, effort and investment of dkile and all the mods. They have my sincere thanks.

 

[afishinado]

It's a real shame the way our country is right now with everything being so contentious.

I would like to participate in a discussion about conservation and the environment, but opinions have become so polarized today we can't even mention or refer to anything that relates to politics without arguments ensuing.

Look what happened, the thread blew up right after it was posted.

It's really unfair and unrealistic to expect the moderators to try to read and edit the posts to allow this type of thread to remain in the forum.

And if we did decide to edit what we consider to be offending posts I guarantee arguments would start about what and who was edited. :roll:

"This is why we can't have nice things".....

Please respect the site owner's wishes and refrain from any political discussions in the future.....fishing is much more fun anyway. It hopefully gets our mind off politics, at least for a little while.

 

[coyoterahn]

dkile/afish,
Thank you for keeping politics off of this site. Discussions relative to all things fishing are much more enjoyable and educational to the community members.

 

[wildtrout2]

I apologize for my part in that mess. I allowed myself to get sucked in too easily. Everything the Mods have said is true.
Thinking more about it, I came to realize that this site is one of the few places I can go and find basic calm and tranquility. Again, my apologies.

 

[salmonoid]

UncleShorty wrote:
ALL the posts on this forum are political in one way or another.

Definition of politics: "relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group... "

Snakeheads? Some like 'em, some don't.
Summer trout fishing? Some like it some don't.
Dry flies vs. wet flies. Nymphs vs. Streamers. 4 wt vs. 5 wt.

It's ALL politics.

And so is a clean environment vs. a polluted environment.

If the intention of the board is to, according to dkile, "discuss flyfishing" I don't see how banning topics that are germane furthers our sport.

Certainly there should be standards of conduct and relevancy. People who enjoy fly fishing can and should express strong opinions.

But banning entire posts, certainly in this instance, is a disservice to the members here and to fly fishing.

Your definition is not the traditional definition - politics is related to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group as it relates to governance, not snakeheads or summer trout fishing. Politics is not simply just a matter of dividing people into groups based on a difference of opinion on a subject matter. And while conservation policies under a political regime may be a very germane discussion, it's also an impossible discussion to have, because it will always blow up into something that simply can't be moderated.

More than not being able to have political discussions, I lament our inability to have civil, respectful discussions. We have devolved to the point where there is such rancor and divide between ideologies that civil discourse has mostly died. It unfortunately only takes two to blow up a thread.

 

[DaveKile]

"Paflyfish is here to help foster a shared interest in expanding our knowledge, experience and most importantly our enjoyment for fly fishing in the Pennsylvania region. Humor, ideas, debate, and opinions are encouraged. Deliberate insults, personal attacks, and lewd comments are not welcome for any reason."

At one time politics did not devolve into insults, name calling, lewd outrageous posts that we starting having 4-5 years ago. If billion-dollar tech companies can't figure out how to do it, then god bless you if you think I know what to do.

I want this to be trusted place friends, family and new members to the site can find a positive experience when they first start looking around. If it's viewed as a hostile environment where people are arguing and attacking each other that detracts from the quality of the site.

We have also worked hard to keep out over the top amount of unwanted fly fishing advertisers and Internet spam that can pollute a site. I delete 30-40 spammers every day I turn on the registration. The mods do a lot of work as well.

There have been plenty of bullies and trolls tossed off the site over the years. The mods have spent a lot of time showing some people to the door.

Is this curated? Yes! Is it moderated? Yes! Is it deliberate? Yes! Is it perfect? No! I think there are plenty of old fly fishing forums that are turned off because they didn't stick to the purpose of the site and eliminate the negative detractors.

Is this site for everyone, probably not. Some people like to poke the bear and enjoy spicing it up. This is not that place I hope.

If you are looking for a friendly, trustworthy site that is looking to help other fly fishing anglers in the region I hope you feel this is the best site for you.

Moderating is very hard work. Maurice, Jack, Tom, and Dave and I don’t agree on everything. But we have taken a lot of time over many years to support the purpose of the site and care about the people here so that everyone can enjoy our shared knowledge about the sport. Which by the way is a pretty amazing collecting of some fantastic anglers.

So I hope you understand why I have taken the directions that I have and look forward to do the best we can at make this a great site together.

 

[jifigz]

We can't even agree that a bright pink San Juan worm is clearly the best all around nymph to consistently catch stocked rainbows trout let alone political stuff.

Oh, and the pink San Juan worm is the best and most consistent nymph to fool dumb rainbow stockies......no arguments with that, please!

I'm a serious note, I am grateful for this site and I really appreciate it. It has put me in touch with new people, allowed me to meet new friends, and hopefully I'll meet many more of you over the years. If next summer is "normal" y'all can come back to the Juniata and camp in my yard.