Thoughts on RKBA organizations, and their messages


PDA






Derek Zeanah
September 20, 2010, 10:20 PM
I'm soliciting feedback from members as we take a closer look at our "nonprofit" policy. You may have noticed that we're giving free ads to pro-RKBA nonprofits. The question is this: what sort of limits should be placed on the organizations we give advertising to?

Y'all will be affected by this decision, as you have to view them. So, what's your position? This won't decide our policy, but it will be used as a data point in decisionmaking.

Feel free to comment below as well. Not on the fact that ads exist, but on the issue at hand.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts on RKBA organizations, and their messages" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Derek Zeanah
September 20, 2010, 10:25 PM
Here are the ads that prompted this discussion:

#1 has received a number of complaints, for predictable reasons. It's also an organization that many here seem to support, and this ad has received 7-10x more clicks than any of the other ads.

#2 received a complaint because a user saw it as an endorsement of religion by THR. This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of the purpose, goals, and history of the organization, but it's worth discussing.


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=127955&stc=1&d=1285035994


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=127956&stc=1&d=1285035994

TexasRifleman
September 20, 2010, 10:28 PM
The end result is what matters. The groups have different approaches but generally the same end as the target.

I say let them all advertise and we can simply ignore the ones we disagree with, support the ones we like.

That's just me, I care more about the Second Amendment being protected than minor squabbling over what group does a better job of getting it done. Turn them ALL loose on the fight and maybe one will get through.

PT1911
September 20, 2010, 10:28 PM
IMO, if it is gun,ammo,knife, or accessory related, it is fair game....profit or no profit.

seeing ads for retailers or guns, ammo, knives, or accessories would not bother me a bit... now if I scroll down to an ad for Playtex (not to be insensitive to the ladies,) I just might think it has gone too far....:D

When it comes right down to it, whatever must be done must be done. I have no financial investment in this site and, therefore, I have no right to complain about how it is funded. Do what you must to keep the site the way we love it...

All that said, if it can be done with limited ads, 1-3 per page in spaces that are already vacant, AND can be kept even somewhat related to our passion, I would greatly appreciate it...;)


Just read some more... someone is really complaining that there is a Jewish firearms supporting add... REALLY!!? Grow up Hitler, we all have the same goal here... I dont care if an ad is Catholics for guns, Jews for guns, Buddhists for guns,Blacks for guns, Whites for guns, Yellows for guns, Reds for guns (not referring to communists here!!!) or Rainbows for guns... Hows about we just focus on the message that all of these groups are fighting for our right to own guns!

All that said, I suppose it would be prudent to know what it is the group stands for.. for instance, (and I am only using this as an example) if Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership are Pro right to OWN guns and AGAINST the right to carry guns, hunt, etc, then I could potentially see an issue.

Potential fearmongering IS a problem

BUT, once again, that is administrator's call, NOT MINE or that of anyone else who has no financial stake in this site.

Sam1911
September 20, 2010, 10:31 PM
Issue #1: IMHO, if a message presented in an ad is (In Our Humble Opinions) blatantly wrong (to include what we would normally call "tinfoilhattery") we should advise that advertiser that we will accept another ad from them, but not that one.

The same standard would apply to any other non-High-Road content that would not be allowed to be posted (or would end up quickly locked) in a thread by any Member.

Issue #2: Ha Ha ha ha heee heee! "Holy missed-the-point, Batman!" :D

luigi
September 20, 2010, 10:31 PM
<redacted statement> This post is not intended to express any opion for or against the ads themselves.

My comment here is if you're willing to post an ad on a topic (UN small arms treaty specifically) then that topic should be open for discussion. If the topic isn’t open for discussion then you shouldn’t take the ad.

FourteenMiles
September 20, 2010, 10:35 PM
Effort put towards a myth detracts from legitimate pro 2A efforts, that is why I don't approve of the "UN arms treaty" one.

Derek Zeanah
September 20, 2010, 10:40 PM
Effort put towards a myth detracts from legitimate pro 2A efforts, that is why I don't approve of the "UN arms treaty" one. I'd argue that it's technically been an effective ad (as in, it got people to click on it), but I have issues with it too.

Let's not focus so much on the individual ads themselves. Let's look more at the approaches that can be used to deal with future ads.

AKElroy
September 20, 2010, 10:47 PM
Two years ago, I would have had a different view. Now, I really don't care. With the legal minefield this type of forum is now a part of, I see the need for revenue to keep it going.

As long as the site loads quickly & maintains high road contributions & content, I am happy to tollerate the changes.

Sky
September 20, 2010, 10:50 PM
No matter what you do someone is going to take issue with something! Kinda like some great thinker once said, "stay true to your beliefs, for you can't make everyone happy".

taliv
September 20, 2010, 10:58 PM
None. If they care about the RKBA, they should get to advertise. Ideally, we are an open-minded, uninfringing lot. We should allow any generally pro-gun organization the opportunity to present their case, even if we disagree or even if it's slightly nutty. The danger is the extent to which people (especially n00bs) believe giving a free banner ad is an implicit statement of agreement. I wouldn't want our credibility damaged by appearing to agree with it.

Don't give ads to organizations you wouldn't join.
bad standard. I wouldn't join the pink pistols, but I don't have a problem accepting tasteful ads from them.

Accept ads from all, but limit the ads to fit "high road" guidelines
decency and taste are hard enough to moderate. creating a guideline about being right seems unlikely. What guideline would example #1 break? "Your armchair constitutional lawyers must agree with our armchair constitutional lawyers" ?
GOA and NRA famously disagree on many topics. I don't think THR moderators should be put in the position of deciding the official position and deleting one camp's ads.

TexasRifleman
September 20, 2010, 11:02 PM
I agree, none of the choices are clear cut. That's why I advocate the open method and let the market and the users drive what's appropriate.

If a banner ad garners 200 complaints it goes, if a banner ad gets 3 complaints it stays, something like that.

Rather than try to create some sort of judgement call just let the users dictate what they are willing to tolerate.

The UN ad for example had numerous complaints. The complaint on the JPFO ad was borderline silliness.

Let the user base define the acceptable threshold one ad at a time maybe.

COMPNOR
September 20, 2010, 11:03 PM
I'd prefer to see banners from the lesser organizations. And by that I mean the not as well known, maybe even state level.

As much as the NRA does, just about everyone knows who they are. Yet there are many great orgs out there that could use support.

TexasRifleman
September 20, 2010, 11:07 PM
Yet there are many great orgs out there that could use support.

All they have to do is ask. THR isn't choosing what groups get the ads, Derek has offered them to pretty much any group:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=544824

hso
September 20, 2010, 11:24 PM
I agree with Sam1911 and luigi in posts #5 and #6.

THR should exercise control over PSAs and future ads just as we do over other content and as any print or electronic media shop does over what goes into their pages.

That said, there will always be members that honestly don't "get" what a PSA is about and there will be a very few who will intentionally pretend to miss the point of the PSA. Helping folks who honestly miss the point see it will be part of the responsibility that comes with having outside content added. If enough people complain then we've missed the point and the PSA or ad should be reviewed to take the comments into account.

shotgunjoel
September 20, 2010, 11:30 PM
Issue #1: IMHO, if a message presented in an ad is (In Our Humble Opinions) blatantly wrong (to include what we would normally call "tinfoilhattery") we should advise that advertiser that we will accept another ad from them, but not that one.

I agree. Get rid of those UN treaty ads. They're ridiculous.

Zanad
September 20, 2010, 11:43 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
I +1 that

Derek Zeanah
September 21, 2010, 12:07 AM
The discussion has raised another possibility:

Accept ads without prejudice, then implement a voting system that can be used to police the ads. If a large enough percentage of viewers think an ad is in bad taste (at least I'd use "bad taste" for the ad we're talking about here), then it gets yanked.

9mmepiphany
September 21, 2010, 12:08 AM
None. If they care about the RKBA, they should get to advertise.
this would be my preference...but some are really out there and advocate illegal actions

Accept ads from all, but limit the ads to fit "high road" guidelines
this would IMO be too tight, but closer to what I'd feel comfortable with than the first

Don't give ads to organizations you wouldn't join.
this is just silly, the goal should be to bring more folks to the cause...especially those who might be on the fence

9mmepiphany
September 21, 2010, 12:12 AM
Folks objecting to the 2nd banner (JPFO) leads me to believe it was a knee jerk reaction. They do a great job, bringing in a segment of the population usually at odds with 2A

jfh
September 21, 2010, 12:17 AM
another vote for sam1911's and luigi's positions.

Jim H.

prism
September 21, 2010, 03:45 AM
since finances are an issue, just run standard business banner ads.......paid ads.

Sgt_R
September 21, 2010, 04:06 AM
Issue #1: IMHO, if a message presented in an ad is (In Our Humble Opinions) blatantly wrong (to include what we would normally call "tinfoilhattery") we should advise that advertiser that we will accept another ad from them, but not that one.

The same standard would apply to any other non-High-Road content that would not be allowed to be posted (or would end up quickly locked) in a thread by any Member.


A thousand times, yes.

R

ArmedLiberal
September 21, 2010, 04:46 AM
I like the idea of having a "vote them off" feature.

To some degree I approve of having ideas fight it out and letting the lousy ideas fail on their own. But, for example, the UN Treaty ad is just ridiculous.

And also it's important to provide a way for someone who has never heard of the UN Treaty to learn the facts so that they can reach their own conclusion.

Good Luck with this, I'm glad it's not me having to sort it out.

FROGO207
September 21, 2010, 07:16 AM
I agree. Let the members be able to vote the offending add off the site. I would like to see the adds at least firearm related ones also. That said if it means that the decision of site or no site needs to be made then we may have to put up with some sort of paid advertising to keep the site going while keeping forum rules intact. I am glad it is not on my shoulders to decide about add content however.:scrutiny:

o Unforgiven o
September 21, 2010, 07:47 AM
I am pretty new here, have'nt contributed much or have a high post count. That said, you all have run this place pretty well so far and even in my short time here have truly come to like it here and I trust the staff to get this going. As to the ads themselves; though not all the ads look the same, are founded by the same people or make the same point they for the most part are in someway fighting for the 2A. I think the staff here are good people and can use common sense with the ads, and I for one do not pay to keep this site running and am all for paid ads again monitored by common sense which I believe will be the case here.

On a side note, I found the JPFO ad funnier than anything else :D

Jamie B
September 21, 2010, 07:54 AM
Why should anyone get free advertising?

The basic logic for advertising is either to make a profit, or to cover costs.

This would continue to allow free access for members.

Everyone should pay, but there could be different levels.

o Unforgiven o
September 21, 2010, 08:31 AM
Why should anyone get free advertising?

The basic logic for advertising is either to make a profit, or to cover costs.

This would continue to allow free access for members.

Everyone should pay, but there could be different levels.


Because this is a pro-gun site that values RKBA and allowing ads that will promote that is not all about what can you make from it. If they can pay a fee to help with costs great, if they are able to pay more than that to help keep us going too great. But I believe this was mainly more support for the 2A than to make money.

longhair75
September 21, 2010, 09:10 AM
Friend Derek,

First, thanks for this forum. It is a great place to interact with our fellow firearm enthusiasts.

I selected: Accept ads from all, but limit the ads to fit "high road" guidelines

You are certainly entitled to a fair return on your time and effort keeping this place open.

lions
September 21, 2010, 12:21 PM
Accept ads from all, but limit the ads to fit "high road" guidelines

As 9mmepiphany points out, some groups are really out there and advocate illegal actions. I don't want to see ads for extreme or fringe groups on this responsible board simply because one of their ads fits our guidelines.

Don't give ads to organizations you wouldn't join.

This is better but I would rather see it read; Don't give ads to organizations that don't adhere to THRs guidelines (dedicated to the advancement of responsible firearms ownership).

Day after day our mods decide whether or not discussions here fit our guidelines and I would trust them to do the same in determining which organizations are fit to advertise here. Obviously there will be disagreement from members from time to time but we have avenues to discuss these things with mods and valid arguments will always be heard and considered.

poco loco
September 21, 2010, 03:11 PM
that by censoring, it implies agreement with any that do appear. And that can turn into a nightmare if something ugly slips through.

Personally on the free ad offer, any pro firearms group that's not neonazi or similar should be ok.

For paid ads, all comers should be accepted even anti gun orgs.

Why? because, they will have no effect here and contribute to the overall financial health of the site.

I enjoy the Idea of the Brady bunch buying a google ad placement then ending up here where we can suck them dry a few pennies at a time.:)

As a member of a pro firearms, pro 2a group on a high traffic Democratic blog, there's always someone who will complain about anything.

The ad policy there is if you got the cash, you can place the ad. What fun it is seeing ads for people like Sharon Angle and knowing that every click costs her campaign a few pennies.

Oh and just an fyi y'all, we are making headway with Democratic activists and imo, we'll be able to remove the gun control plank from the party platform before '12 Wish us luck as it will help all us gun owners and shooters no matter the political persuasion..............

Poco....

Husker_Fan
September 21, 2010, 04:13 PM
There may be nothing to it, but NAGR has been the subject of some "interesting" discussions on other forums regarding how it is run.

Tim Burke
September 21, 2010, 04:28 PM
Accept all the ads, charge the members to complain.

jeepguy
September 21, 2010, 05:57 PM
personally i like everything you guys have done so far & want to thankyou for making thr such a great experience & for all of your hard work. if you let pro rkba ads run for free thats great. if you charge for ads from companys & don't charge not for profits thats ok too, or if you charge for both. altough (imo) letting not for profit pro rkba run free ads is very high road of you guys. either way i will look forward to enjoying this great site.

LemmyCaution
September 21, 2010, 07:28 PM
I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of voting ads off the site. How do you know whether the votes are being made because of the ad or because of the organization behind them? Would people vote down an ad from, for example, the Vermont ACLU, which is pro-RKBA, because they see the acronym ACLU and think 'liberal=bad: destroy?' Would people ignore an ad from the NRA depicting Obama with a Hitler mustache?

I hate to pile more work on the mods and administrators, but I feel that the biggest reason I return to THR daily is that I trust their judgement to keep the content of THR on The High Road.

If I have a problem with a post made on this site, I can take it to the moderators; and they will use their best judgement to handle the content of the site. I'd like the same regarding the advertisements. I have to trust that the membership here have the RKBA as their cause. Each of us may occasionally write something counterproductive or in a rash mood, but we all seek to advance the RKBA. I think we can say the same about any organization that would advertise here.

I feel that the mods and admin should determine what stays and what goes, with input from the membership.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts on RKBA organizations, and their messages" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!