Should a martial art require skills from outside of the school in order to progress?

[skribs]

Sure you can. Is someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts and respond to them? No? Then it sounds like a self-discipline problem to me.

I am specifically using the word Ignore because it is a feature of this site. I cannot use the Ignore feature on you.

Again, you purposefully misunderstood me so that you could belittle me. On that note, how dare you talk down to me about self-discipline, when you treat everyone like crap?

(Note, I have nothing against J Pickard, he was just the most recent poster I could see that isn't a moderator).

I don't put people on ignore for reports, but I've found it very easy to ignore someone's posts. Most of the time if I see a name I'll scroll right past what they write unless I have a specific reason to read it-that gets rid of any temptation to respond since I've nothing to respond to.

It made the forum a lot more pleasant once I stopped replying to the people that agitate me. Seems obvious but just pointing it out because of how much of a difference it made for me.

Like I said, the forum gives me that ability with most people. But the feature does not work against moderators, so I cannot make use of it. Yes, this feature has made the forum a much better place for me. Using the feature made me appreciate the forum a lot more. And most of the moderators are pleasant to chat with and I learn a lot from them. It's just a few specific ones that get to hide behind that moderator shield. They might not even realize they're doing it. But they do.

Should we get rid of the Ignore feature? It's there for a reason. If it's not necessary and people should just use their own self-control, then get rid of it. If it does actually serve a purpose, then it should serve a purpose here, too.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I am specifically using the word Ignore because it is a feature of this site. I cannot use the Ignore feature on you.

Being an adult gives you that feature. Or rather, it gives it to most people.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Like I said, the forum gives me that ability with most people. But the feature does not work against moderators, so I cannot make use of it. Yes, this feature has made the forum a much better place for me. Using the feature made me appreciate the forum a lot more. And most of the moderators are pleasant to chat with and I learn a lot from them. It's just a few specific ones that get to hide behind that moderator shield. They might not even realize they're doing it. But they do.

Yeah I understood what you meant. Unfortunately it's a limit to the forum. I was suggesting just skipping past the posts and manually ignoring them when you see the poster name-if you don't read them there's nothing to bother you, and nothing that you can respond to, to continue a pointless argument.

Should we get rid of the Ignore feature? It's there for a reason. If it's not necessary and people should just use their own self-control, then get rid of it. If it does actually serve a purpose, then it should serve a purpose here, too.

The reason that it's not available for moderators is because we sometimes post in-thread warnings, announcements, or updates that if you put us on ignore would not show up-so it removes that possibility. I believe it would also prevent you from getting/seeing warnings from those mods since they are sent through the same mechanic as 'conversations'.

 

[jks9199]

I also like the theory of reversing #1 when you actually need it. Assume it isn't loaded until you verify that it is.

The circumstances where assuming a firearm is unloaded/non-functional are beneficial are vanishingly small. If you've succeeded in disarming someone pointing a gun at you -- you probably shouldn't be thinking about shooting them anymore...

The two loudest sounds are a bang when you expect a click, and a click when you expect a bang.

Trite saying. And, again, very few times where the second half matters. If you've got a malfunction, and you need to shoot -- you ought to know how to fix it under pressure.

 

[skribs]

Being an adult gives you that feature. Or rather, it gives it to most people.

This is what I'm talking about. You use the laugh reaction not when a post is genuinely trying to be funny, but when you want to show that you find someone's argument funny. More condescension from someone who is supposed to be a role model in the Taekwondo community. I really hope you don't treat your students this way.

 

[skribs]

The reason that it's not available for moderators is because we sometimes post in-thread warnings, announcements, or updates that if you put us on ignore would not show up-so it removes that possibility. I believe it would also prevent you from getting/seeing warnings from those mods since they are sent through the same mechanic as 'conversations'.

Hence why I listed a few options. Maybe it's a limitation on the forum, but I would hope there would be some way of adding it in.

One example that I see on Reddit is they have mods that can upgrade specific posts to "mod" posts. For example, when you post about martial arts, your post has the same rights as any other post. But when you post a warning/announcement/update, you would add a "mod" tag/flag to it, where it cannot be ignored with the ignore feature.

Another is what I've seen used in every IT job, is a separate mod account. When I'm doing email, tickets, HR paperwork, etc., I'm using a user account. When I'm doing actual tech stuff like patching computers, I use an admin account. It wouldn't change posts that have already been made, but it could be used on posts going forward.

A third possibility is to do some sort of review and update the moderator list. I'm obviously biased in even suggesting this. And I know there are some users that aren't going to get along with any moderator, or are going to go after specific ones. However, I have noticed that most moderators get along with most people. There's just one or two that don't seem to mix well. In my biased opinion, of course. I've seen others have similar problems as I have had, is why I don't think it's limited to just me.

There are probably other ways to do this as well, which aren't coming to me at the moment. I can't tell you how much my experience on this forum would improve if I didn't have to actively ignore him. And, if he was afforded the same option against me (such as if he could ignore me on his conversation account and only had to see my posts on his mod account), I'm sure he might enjoy it more, too. I can't imagine that he actually enjoys talking to me. Unless he's just trolling me, in which case all the more reason for me to ignore him.

 

[skribs]

The circumstances where assuming a firearm is unloaded/non-functional are beneficial are vanishingly small. If you've succeeded in disarming someone pointing a gun at you -- you probably shouldn't be thinking about shooting them anymore...

Who said anything about disarming someone? I'm thinking more along the lines of when I hear someone breaking in and I grab the handgun near my bed. If I just assume it's loaded, and it's not, that's a big problem for me.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Hence why I listed a few options. Maybe it's a limitation on the forum, but I would hope there would be some way of adding it in.

I might've missed it, but you only mentioned two options - don't have an ignore feature or be able to ignore mods as well. I explained why both of those options weren't utilized when the forum was made, and how it was intentional, not a limitation.

You mention a lot more options below, which we (meaning staff) may discuss, but your first post seemed more of venting then offering options.

 

[drop bear]

The circumstances where assuming a firearm is unloaded/non-functional are beneficial are vanishingly small. If you've succeeded in disarming someone pointing a gun at you -- you probably shouldn't be thinking about shooting them anymore...

Trite saying. And, again, very few times where the second half matters. If you've got a malfunction, and you need to shoot -- you ought to know how to fix it under pressure.

I don't exactly think shrodlingers gun is a sensible way to carry.

 

[skribs]

I might've missed it, but you only mentioned two options - don't have an ignore feature or be able to ignore mods as well. I explained why both of those options weren't utilized when the forum was made, and how it was intentional, not a limitation.

You mention a lot more options below, which we (meaning staff) may discuss, but your first post seemed more of venting then offering options.

One more thought I just had. If I am actively ignoring his posts by scrolling past his name, and doing such a good job that I never notice what he posts, I would also miss his warnings and mod directives.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One of the BJJ youtubers I've been watching lately has the theory that there are three main skills for self-defense: grappling, striking, and firearms. His requirement to get to purple belt is that you have some basic striking competency*, and his requirement to get to brown belt is that you have some basic firearms competency*. He doesn't expect you to go out and win a boxing match or a 3-gun, but at the very least be able to hit a heavy bag with power (for purple) and know basic gun safety and be able to hit a reasonable target (for brown).

Comments on his videos are mixed. Some really appreciate that he is not just focused on pure BJJ and that he's encouraging his students to have a well-rounded skillset. Others have the attitude that unless it's classes he offers, it shouldn't be a requirement. That he should promote based purely on BJJ skill, and let the students decide if they want to pick up other skills along the way.

Personally, I tend to side with the second group. I do have experience in striking and with firearms, and I do believe they are worthwhile skills. And if I were a 4-stripe blue/purple belt at his gym, this particular requirement would not hold me back. I could see it being a requirement if they had a striking class on Fridays and a firearms safety class once a month (similar to how Taekwondo often includes grappling techniques in belt testing, if those techniques are taught in class). I don't see it as a requirement if the skills are not offered by the instructor.

*This is in addition to his BJJ requirements.

I think it's up to the school. I train in Isshinryu karate. Not 'self-defense' or 'wholesome rounded martial training', etc. Just Isshinryu. So that's what we train. We may practice some skills that are not primarily Isshinryu (learning to fall, learning tuite, etc), but those skills are not required to advance in Isshinryu.

 

[skribs]

We may practice some skills that are not primarily Isshinryu (learning to fall, learning tuite, etc), but those skills are not required to advance in Isshinryu.

But they are taught in your school, even if they're not indigenous to the art.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But they are taught in your school, even if they're not indigenous to the art.

Sure. They're just not required for advancement.

We also teach many weapons forms from Tokushinryu, but not that many of our students are also students of Tokushinryu. It's fine to learn. But I am not a student of it; I'm not tested for rank and my advancement in Isshinryu doesn't depend on it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is what I'm talking about. You use the laugh reaction not when a post is genuinely trying to be funny, but when you want to show that you find someone's argument funny. More condescension from someone who is supposed to be a role model in the Taekwondo community. I really hope you don't treat your students this way.

Unintentionally funny is still funny. And if your argument is laughable, it's laughable. And I will laugh. Or at least chuckle.

 

[skribs]

Unintentionally funny is still funny. And if your argument is laughable, it's laughable. And I will laugh. Or at least chuckle.

You can do that to yourself. When you choose to use that reaction on a post you know someone made with serious intent, you're choosing to be condescending towards them. You spoke to me about self-discipline earlier. Maybe you should work on that yourself.

 

[Rich Parsons]

One more thought I just had. If I am actively ignoring his posts by scrolling past his name, and doing such a good job that I never notice what he posts, I would also miss his warnings and mod directives.

If you skip an in thread warning then yes.
An actual warning only sent to a member would be in your in box.

You could ignore the messages there as well.

All actions have reactions or consequences .
Some good some bad.

Here is the slipper slope for ignoring staff.
** Hey guys if you put a mod or admin on ignore you can skip all their warnings and messages and then you can do whatever you want. **
It turns into *Sunday Monster Truck Voice Ad * Troll fest 3000 !!!

Normal posts look much different than a warning post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's like to talk about whether takedown (how to shoot) or anti-takedown (firearm safety) is more important. Should we address both?

That was never really the point, though.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That was never really the point, though.

What's the purpose that you know everything about gun safety, but you don't know how to shoot, or can't shoot well?

If someone wants to learn sword skill, I will ask that person to go into the woods and chop down 1,000 tree branches. IMO, to develop gun skill, you have to shoot at least 1,000 bullets (or even more).

 

[skribs]

If you skip an in thread warning then yes.
An actual warning only sent to a member would be in your in box.

You could ignore the messages there as well.

All actions have reactions or consequences .
Some good some bad.

Here is the slipper slope for ignoring staff.
** Hey guys if you put a mod or admin on ignore you can skip all their warnings and messages and then you can do whatever you want. **
It turns into *Sunday Monster Truck Voice Ad * Troll fest 3000 !!!

Normal posts look much different than a warning post.

Hence why all of my suggestions were to allow me to put the conversations of a person on ignore, but in such a way that I would not be able to use the ignore feature on their posts they post as a moderator.

• Separate account for conversation and moderator duties.
• Post flags for moderator posts that cannot be ignored (i.e. "I like Taekwondo" from a moderator can be ignored, but "This topic is off limits" cannot, because the moderator would flag that post as a mod post).
• Review the list of moderators so that moderators that regularly have inflammatory conversations are no longer moderators, and are therefore able to be ignored.

The post you're replying to is in response to the "Just use self-discipline and don't read" comments from moderators on how I should go about this. If were to just scroll past all of the person's posts, then I would miss their posts, in the same way that if I could ignore all of their posts I would. I was pointing this out as a reason why "just don't read posts from the moderator you don't like" wasn't a viable option.

But, if I could use the Ignore feature, but I still saw mod posts, I would at least be aware of those warnings.

I also wasn't suggesting that we ignore mods so we can ignore their warnings. Ignoring the warnings would lead to the punishment the warnings contain. This is why my suggestions were all ways in which moderators can do their job, without their personal opinions or personalities getting in the way of forum decorum.

 

[Dirty Dog]

What's the purpose that you know everything about gun safety, but you don't know how to shoot, or can't shoot well?

You won't accidentally shoot someone.

If someone wants to learn sword skill, I will ask that person to go into the woods and chop down 1,000 tree branches.

Yeah, that'll certainly help them learn to use a rapier, Mr. Miyagi.

Not all swords are chopping weapons.