Thoughts on RKBA organizations, and their messages

[Derek Zeanah]

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.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

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.

 

[TexasRifleman]

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]

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....

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]

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!"

 

[luigi]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^^^^^^^^^
I +1 that

 

[Derek Zeanah]

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]

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]

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]

another vote for sam1911's and luigi's positions.

Jim H.

 

[prism]

since finances are an issue, just run standard business banner ads.......paid ads.

 

[Sgt_R]

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]

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]

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.