"Jacobite" garb

[TheOfficialBren]

And better tasting, too.

[Singlemalt]

Historical Note: Texans found the Scotch cannon to be a far more refined piece of artillery than the Teiquila cannon used by Santa Anna's forces.

It was well known that the Teiquila cannon was know to hurt those who used it more than the enemy.

[MNlad]

It was well known that the Teiquila cannon was know to hurt those who used it more than the enemy.

Usually the next morning.

Please, reconsider Brian. I appreciated your perspective.

[hylander]

It is a shame Brian felt he had to leave and I saw nothing really offensive in his posts about the historical firearms, unless I missed something.

I have to say that the moderators do an amazing job of keeping hot button topics off this site and the focus on the kilt. I appreciate that, and that the focus on the kilt is maintained. This forum does allow anyone who has an interest in the kilts and kilt wearing to participate despite our varying opinions about everything else. There are always those who focus on the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit, and those people can certainly put a cramp in otherwise very interesting dicussions. But agian, the rule is the rules, and I think this site succeeds because of those rules. Too often I have seen other forums devolve into endless political/social/religious rants that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and that doesn't happen here, and I applaude the moderators for keeping the lid on as it were.

Jock has an interesting point, but I think that the sharp pointy things are usually exempt as most of the examples which I have seen discussed here, the sgian, the dirk, the broadsword are more commonly encountered in the kilt wearing world as possibly traditional elements of kilt wearing. It's a fine line I suppose, but I think a case can be made for the sharp and pointy being relevent to kilt wearing. The other thing to be said for the sharp things is that they are often beautifully hand made by those on the forum discussing them, and are a marvel to see, at least I enjoy seeing them and how they are made. Another fine line perhaps. The last point would be that in the US these days any dicussion of fireams can and will qucikly go political. That may be the real point to the application to this rule in this instance.

[TheOfficialBren]

I hear you, Hylander, but I have read many of Brian's posts. They are ALWAYS of a relevant historical nature, worded with discretion (except for the last one), and full of extremely detailed information.

Brian "Woodsheal" is one of the most respected members of this forum. His intelligence and knowledge have benefited the entire rabble on many occasions.

Perhaps his history (pardon the pun) as a member of the forum should have been considered. Perhaps the MODS should have considered that before bending to a whiney complainer. I hope that they are reading this and taking notes. When a valued member of long standing is jilted then perhaps you guys should re-evaluate your policy. Relax. Do not tighten up. Use logic and common sense on a case-by-case basis.



Okay. I'm finished venting. I see that Brian has gone dormant. I hope he comes back. His threads are amazing.

[Downunder Kilt]

Sorry OB, but I am going to have to completely disagree with you on this one. There are rules to this forum for the benefit of everyone. What you are suggesting is that depending on who you are, how long you have been a member, whether you have a certain area of expertise, whether you are knowledgeable on a subject is how you should be treated in relation to the rules. In my opinion, that is so wrong.

Can you imagination the pressure that the Mods would be under and the unworkable position that they would be in if someone reported a post for a rule violation. Say a report was made in relation to a post for a Rule 5 violation (Religion) Under your proposal the Mods would have to consider,
How long has the poster been a member?
What is his experience and knowledge on the subject of religion (Is he a minister, priest, rabbi etc.)?
Is he respected on the forum?
Was the post in context?
Is the poster going to be jilted?

Rules are there for eveyone to abide by, not to ignore or work around because you are considered a special person

BTW I did not see anything wrong with Brians post and I am sorry that he has left the forum and will miss his contributions

[MNlad]

Rule # 11 excerpt:

. . .Weapons shown as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or shown as components of a prescribed uniform, may be exempt as long as the discussion does not become about the weapon itself or its use.)

Yes, I know the rules "is" the rules, and a great deal of though has gone into shaping them as they are today. However, periodic review and reconsideration is not unreasonable, nor is judging a post as acceptable or unacceptable based on the context of the discussion. Brian's post's have brought great historical perspective and levity to this forum and were non-political in nature, save his last entry.

Perhaps a slight broadening of the "exception" would meet the historical interests of many members while still maintaining the kilt-centric intent of this forum.

Weapons shown as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or shown as components of a prescribed uniform, may be exempt, as long as the discussion remains historical in nature and relates to kilted attire (i.e. kilted regiments, etc.) and does not become solely about the weapon itself or its use.

My 2 cents worth.

[Jock Scot]

Rule # 11 excerpt:


Yes, I know the rules "is" the rules, and a great deal of though has gone into shaping them as they are today. However, periodic review and reconsideration is not unreasonable, nor is judging a post as acceptable or unacceptable based on the context of the discussion. Brian's post's have brought great historical perspective and levity to this forum and were non-political in nature, save his last entry.

Perhaps a slight broadening of the "exception" would meet the historical interests of many members while still maintaining the kilt-centric intent of this forum.

Weapons shown as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or shown as components of a prescribed uniform, may be exempt, as long as the discussion remains historical in nature and relates to kilted attire (i.e. kilted regiments, etc.) and does not become solely about the weapon itself or its use.

My 2 cents worth.

The problem is that there is a thread going at the moment(17-18 century dirk) that is now in its second page and as far as I can see there is not one mention of the kilt. NOT ONE.

So I return to my theme of there is not a level playing field when it comes to firearms and sharp pointy lethal weapons. One (firearms) the mods pounce on, in a trice, even if being discussed in a kilted theme, and another(dirks) is not seemingly moderated at all, its not even camouflaged by mentioning the kilt which is, supposedly, a prerequisite of this website.. Not consistent moderating and makes a mockery of rule 11.

Now I am not complaining about either thread in question, personally I am happy with them. I am not complaining about the moderators, they do have a difficult job to do on occasion. I am complaining that rule 11 is not fit for purpose and is not moderated consistently.

[McClef]

I am sorry if some feel there is inconsistency in Moderation but, contrary to popular opinion, Moderators are not online 24/7 and I would be surprised indeed if any of us read every single thread and post every day.

I myself most certainly do not and like many other members, will only follow things that are personally of interest. I personally would not usually read a thread such as this because it is not in my interest zone. We do rely heavily upon reports being brought to our attention by members as those who have read the FAQ on the subject will be aware.

If members have never read it or have not read it for some time, it can be found at http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...dispute_policy where the procedures are outlined.

There is also the FAQ entitled - How can I notify the staff immediately about something I find on the forum? THis can be found at http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f..._report_a_post so useful to for members to see what to do if they feel they have found a problem.

When a report is received we are bound to follow the procedures, even where (as can happen) it seems immediately evident that the complaint is capricious, malicious, or unjustified. When a post is not reported, and we have not seen it ourselves, then unless it is brought to our attention, it can slip through the net. It can also be that a particular topic has been discussed and been ruled on in the past and might have been ruled as not breaking a rule so we have seen no need to intervene directly ourselves.

One thing you can of course guarantee is that you cannot please all of the people all of the time and that some will take umbrage and want to leave and others will accept the outcome of our deliberations.

We keep records of all reports and outcomes in our archives so we do try to be consistent. If you think we have been inconsistent between threads you think similar then let us know by report or PM.

Rule 11 is always one that creates emotions, often due to cultural divides, and we have tried to revise the way it is expressed. Please give us the detail of where you think the inconsistency is Jock - if you are happy with both threads and you think we do a difficult job, and are yet inconsistent, then we would be grateful for the details of where you think the inconsistency lies.

Cheers,

Trefor

[Jock Scot]

Oh I quite accept that mods rely on "reports" from the members and do entirely accept that moderators are volunteers who do not need to man their posts 24/7. I also quite accept that the members---including me---- should not and do expect the mods to read every post all of the time. I for one am grateful for what mods do. However --------

I have given an example with the dirk thread (which is immediately below this one in the Historical kilt themes) and it really does illustrate the inconsistencies of rule11 when compared to whenever firearms are mentioned.Now I suggest Brian's outburst is, at least in part, frustration at this inconsistent state of affairs. Particularly when the Jacobite garb thread has managed to survive for some 400 posts and without wading through it firearms must have been mentioned more than once and apparently both the members and the mods were happy enough with the situation until the latter stages of the thread.

Nevertheless Steve is adamant that IF weapons are to be allowed to be discussed, even in an oblique way, it MUST be in a kilt context. Fair enough, this is a kilt website after all. But a thread discussing a sharp pointed lethal weapon such as a dirk and a dirk's primary purpose, certainly in 17/18th centuries where the dirk was a first class, close quarter, killing tool. Cutting up haggis was never its intention! In this thread(17/18th dirk) there is not a mention of the kilt and as I have mentioned in my previous post , the kilt is a prerequisite to mentioning weapons. Weapons don't have to be firearms. Now, I quite accept that bringing in a modern AK47 assault weapon into a Jacobite Garb" discussion would be totally wrong, but when we are talking Jacobites, armies, battles, etc, then muskets, swords , dirks are not an unreasonable addition to the conversation, I think.

So why did no member complain about the dirk thread? I hear you say. Well speaking for myself, I was perfectly happy for it to continue firstly and most importantly, because I could see nothing wrong with it and it was interesting and secondly, as I could see that it was falling foul of rule 11(well OK, in my opinion) I have let it run to prove my point should an occasion arise in the future. Well, that time has arrived.