A question.

[Dale Seago]

My question is this: Why is it permissible for items of the same nature to be showcased in the sub forum 'DIY Showroom' and yet not in this ones? Yes I read the contentious debate in the Jacobite thread and it is of my understanding that the thread must have reference to the kilt included within the posting. Yes that is very good as this is all about the kilt, yes?
But there are many treads over in the DIY kategory that do not konnect to the kilt anywhere within it's thread. One is left to inferr
that is to be used in conjunctions with the kilt in some way, yes?

An example thread from that sub forum which must fall into that kategory is this: "Sgian Dubh #3 in progress"

And if I can imagine that to go through that sub forum there would be many more of it's nature, yes?

Excellent responses from both Father Bill and Steve. Just guessing here, but perhaps threads dealing with the sgian dubh tend not to draw negative attention, even without any specific mention of the kilt, simply because the sgian dubh is not (by design) a weapon but a utility tool and sartorial accessory that is primarily (perhaps even exclusively) associated with the wearing of the kilt. . .?

[Jock Scot]

Original post deleted.------------ Best to let behind the scenes discussions come to a conclusion.

[TheOfficialBren]

Dale brings up a good point.

Sgian dubhs are inherently lnked with Scotland and more specifically with kilt wearing. They were not intended as weapons but tools and, therefore, Rule 11 does not apply.

Claymores (whether the broadsword variety or the hand-and-a-half variety) are inherently linked to Scotland but always were weapons...but they are also associated with kilt wearing, albiet strictly in an historical context.

Dirks, again, linked to Scotland and kilt-wearing, although largely ceremonial and seldom seen today, were weapons but still part of traditional Highland dress.

Firearms (NOT modern arms like, for example, the AR-15) are, again, historical but always intended as weapons or hunting tools. They are pretty much only appropriate within the context of historical reenactment and educational or scientific demonstrations and common sense should prevail. I highly doubt a kiltie is going to tote around his Brown Bess on a daily basis.
Archery kit falls under the same criteria as firearms for the reason that the intent during operation is the same, only the means of the projectile's propusion are varried.

Yes, hunting and sports are still daily activities for millions of people but unless it's done in a kilt then it should go under the misc. category...or on another board.
If it's in an historical context then perhaps it should be filed under the historical sections.

What about making weapons?
These are clearly DIY projects. Many of these skills are dying arts that should be preserved for posterity and for educatinal, historical, and scientific purposes. therefore, their study and recreation should be fostered and encouraged...just use common sense about it.

[Dale Seago]

Claymores (whether the broadsword variety or the hand-and-a-half variety) are inherently linked to Scotland but always were weapons...but they are also associated with kilt wearing, albiet strictly in an historical context.

I think you could add "contemporary ceremonial functions", such as parades or weddings, to that.

[Zardoz]

Archery kit falls under the same criteria as firearms for the reason that the intent during operation is the same, only the means of the projectile's propusion are varried.

Yes, hunting and sports are still daily activities for millions of people but unless it's done in a kilt then it should go under the misc. category...or on another board.

Well... As long as "it's done in a kilt" covers a lot of stuff on this forum, we see discussion and/or photos of all kinds of everyday activities, like "going for coffee in my kilt", "getting tattooed in my kilt", "went to the pub in my kilt", "posed with pretty girls in my kilt", "went to the Sci-Fi con in my kilt" or "going ice skating in my kilt" etc. posted here and generally well enough accepted by the membership.
I daresay that "target practice with my bow and arrow in my kilt" would likely pass with about the same level of fanfare. But if the post was "target practice at the pistol range in my kilt", some folks would pitch a fit about guns. Dress it up however you like, but that's what 'rule 11' is all about, guns. And not so much about firearms themselves, but preventing the endless bandwidth wasting debate that always ensues.
Firearms are on my little mental list of 5 or 6 things I might be seen around "in my kilt" in but avoid posting anything about here, not all of them are proscribed by the rules, mostly I just don't want to have to deal with the possible debates.

[Dale Seago]

Dress it up however you like, but that's what 'rule 11' is all about, guns. And not so much about firearms themselves, but preventing the endless bandwidth wasting debate that always ensues.
Firearms are on my little mental list of 5 or 6 things I might be seen around "in my kilt" in but avoid posting anything about here, not all of them are proscribed by the rules, mostly I just don't want to have to deal with the possible debates.

Pretty much how I look at it.

[Tobus]

Tobus, you're right as far as you go, and that is that if somebody does complain, the moderators may still choose to say, "No, this is not really and truly a violation." More than that, it's by a voting process in which each moderator has a say. In this way, should a complainant pass something on, the moderators' role is to decide whether the compaint is justified.

True, but if there's no violation then it's no-harm, no-foul. What I'm talking about, though, is when there are two separate threads, both of which are technically violations of Rule 11. One gets reported, one doesn't. And so one goes "poof" and the other is allowed to stay.

Let us not forget that the moderators are also members. They do not hang in a wardrobe like and old raincoat and only brought out when needed. If they see something that they believe is offensive or an infringement of the rules, of course, they bring it to the other mods attention.

Do they? I was under the impression from Steve's posts that the moderators are only allowed to take action if a member reports it. The way I read his description, it is the membership that determines what gets reviewed (via the report feature), and only then do the mods get to take action. This was specifically done to avoid any allegation of moderator partiality. Maybe Steve can clear it up for us.

[Dale Seago]

. . .Best to let behind the scenes discussions come to a conclusion.

Well, I dunno, Jock. Hopefully approaches to Rule 11 discussed here can provide further points for the Mods to ponder as they consider how best to phrase and apply/enforce the rule.

If it's going to be a matter of restricting threads solely to some contextual reference to kilts, then should that idea be expanded beyond weapons to prohibit (for example) discussions of Scottish history/cultures/languages prior to the mid-16th century, since neither the kilt nor its predecessor the feileadh mor had come into common use yet?

[Jock Scot]

I hear what you say Dale.

[Grizzled Ian]

The fundamental request that resides in Herr Doktor's post, both at the beginning and at the end, appears to me to be for information about 17th-18th century dirks. One assumes he is taking no prurient interest in the weaponry discussed or depicted in the thread: he may be making one himself, or buying or commissioning one, or perhaps he just wants to see how they are worn.

I trust that the moderators focus on that aspect of the OP. If it is possible (in the IT technical sense) for him to have private access to the removed thread, or to be directed to other sources of information apparent to those who do have access to that thread, then perhaps the membership can be spared yet another grassfire on Rule 11.

Peace be upon you,

Ian